Hello,I always try to avoid getting into arguments, specially with people who have move experience than me. Usually, I just read what you have to say and learn from it. But perhaps I should reconsider that approach from now.
Anyway, Debian is my place where I can do technical stuffs without the obligation to use AI (don't like it, I probably don't use it correctly, it's not useful for me and I avoid it), but I cannot make angry if someone like or don't like AI, use or don't use it.
I'm happy to read that those DFSG *mails* are useful for someone. My partners from the DFSG team are doing an amazing job, they are maintaining the queue really low, and they take this work (and I can include me) with lot of responsibility. Nothing is accepted without a proper human review.
On 11/7/26 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm going to tilt at this windmill once.[1]> The situation is so outrageously far from Debian's erstwhile norms that it's difficult to know where to start, but since we actually had a vote on this stuff, and what is being done now is in egregious violation of even the pro-LLM decision in that vote, let's start there: Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes ("I will no longer upload to NEW"):I have been shown by others that, without an announcement, NEW queue processing now seems to throw my upload at an LLM. From the review results:This is an LLM based review using a Debian Inference based workflow. It was not written by a member of the DFSG team and has not been checked by one. It is not a decision on the package: it may be wrong, and it may have missed things.I think these mails are (supposed to be) a "contribution to Debian". (If they are not, then they are off-topic or spam.) They are "contributed" by the DFSG Team members who set up this system. We had a vote on LLM usage. Let me quote from the winning option: The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit But these message *do not* satisfy *any* standards of quality and correctness, and *no-one* takes responsibility for them.
Nevertheless, you hold the DFSG team responsible below
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.
Same question as Lucas, what's the 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).
Any such automated process should be overseen by
a human who remains accountable for its behavior and output.
There does *not* seem to be any human who is responsible for this
system. Who, specifically, should we hold accountable? After all,
the GR also says:
This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt
from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already
expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every
contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains
accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and
suitability for inclusion in Debian.
A human who generated huge volumes of output much of which was
technically incorrect should be referred to CT or DAM. The GR says
someone is responsible and accountable for the DFSG Team's LLM setup
too. So who, hypothetically, should we refer to CT or DAM ?
Don't other packaging tools raise false positives too? and nobody refers their maintainers to CT or DAM for it.
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. Sruthi, you are the next line of accountability after the DFSG Team itself. You should at the very least very strongly criticise the DFSG Team's behaviour. Community Team and maybe DAM also need to be engaged. Seeing such high-handed rudeness go unchecked is extremely corrosive.
I'm saying this with all respect that my (bad) English allow me, you are criticizing a tool that can be useful for someone. A tool that is not taking the important decision to accept a package. You are pointing to DPL and saying what DPL should do. Also you're calling to Community Team and (maybe) DAM to jump in. This could be demotivating for people who want to try new things in Debian, it can feel like if someone doesn't like your idea, will point you out, and escalated as a conduct problem.
Ian. [1] I'm not subscribed to -devel. And please don't CC me on argumentative replies.
It's really easy to say things that may upset others, and then ask them not to argue with you.
-- Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own. Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
--
cheers,
Emmanuel Arias
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ [email protected]
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1
⠈⠳⣄
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
