Hi Charles, On Mon, 2026-11-09 at 08:00 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Nov 08, 2026 at 06:18:42PM +0100, Matthias Geiger a écrit : > > > > > This is a conduct violation. It's not just a disagreement about the > > > merits of LLMs. We had a vote, and what the DFSG Team are doing is a > > > gross violation of the decision in that vote. > > > > Full ack, and thanks for putting it that way. We had a vote on that, > > and while I (obviously) am not happy with the outcome, I respect it, > > since this is the Debian way of deciding things. I would expect other > > DDs adhere to the same. As evidenced in this thread, this will > > increase maintainer dissatisfaction. > > I think that you are overstretching the results of the GR.
Ian pointed out and explained exactly which parts of the GR aren't being adhered to (in his opinion). See https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email protected] For instance, this part of his mail is clearly correct: The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions. Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact, such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. ... The new system is clearly a "large-scale or automated" project action. But the DFSG Team members who set it up *didn't* consult anyone, let alone get *consensus* as the GR demands (and our longstanding policy, and the Constitution, expect). -- Maytham
