On 09/11/26 at 12:47 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: > 3) Directly contradicting with the GR outcome > > As Ian and Maytham already pointed out, this a direct violation of the GR. > It is a large-scale change, that was neither discussed, nor was consensus > sought, nor announced. It just was there one day. > > I would expect at the very least that the DFSG team puts this on hold, > disables the mails from the LLM, and has a discussion on -project. > > Otherwise, what good is the GR if it is factually ignored ?
As a data point, the GR option I proposed (option B or 2 in https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.en.html ), which was only beaten by the winning option, had: > Prior Discussion of Bulk or Automated Changes: Similarly to the > mass-bug filing process (Developers Reference section 7.1.1), > contributors should discuss their intention before submitting bulk or > autonomously generated contributions. Any such automated process > should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior > and output. And I think that the process implemented by the DFSG team is OK. I draw the line on whether the automated process involves sending information only, or whether it requires an action afterwards. If I submit many bugs, or open many merge requests, one has to close them. If I mass-"fix" many packages by pushing to their Git repositories, someone has to clean up the mess. But here, there are no consequences if you just ignore the notification that the review output is available. Also, I think it's obvious that those reviews are generally useful and correct, and that the prompt used to generate them is fairly detailed, so those reviews cannot be considered slop. Lucas
