Am 10. November 2026 12:11:51 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: >Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-10 00:20:24) >> Am 9. November 2026 15:24:30 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: >> >Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-09 14:55:22) >> >> Am 9. November 2026 13:14:53 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-09 12:26:38) >> >> >> Am 9. November 2026 08:38:41 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard >> >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >I have abosolutely no idea who in the Debian project you are >> >> >> >describing >> >> >> >as wanting to kick anyone else out of Debian. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian was directly calling for disciplinary action, at least that's how >> >> >> I read his remarks. I'm unfortunately also failing to see much >> >> >> evidence of "Assume good faith" towards the DFSG Team in his message, >> >> >> but maybe that's just me not being a native English speaker. > >[...] > >> >It seems to me that we agree in how we read Ian. >> > >> >Question remain in how we understand what we read - which is what you >> >reacted to in this subthread and what I find horrible: >> > >> >Is it your understanding that Ian wants anyone be kicked out of Debian? >> > >> > - Jonas >> > >> >> No, I don't understand Ian as necessarily wanting anyone kicked out of >> Debian. That was not my point. > >Thanks for clarifying that. Please note that *that*, which is not your >point, was my one and only point, because it to me is a gross >accusation that - sorry from uding that deeply concerning term again - >ought to trigger disciplinary action, in my opinion. > >Ok, but I did not mean to drag you in on a mob squad against accusers, >and you moved on to raising another point...: > >> My concern is that invoking CT and DAM, in the context of an alleged conduct >> violation, can itself have a chilling effect on the project. People should >> be able to take responsibility for their teams and try new approaches >> without having to fear that controversial decisions will be escalated into >> disciplinary matters. >> >> This is particularly concerning in light of the GR: Ian's own proposal, >> which explicitly included disciplinary consequences for LLM-related >> violations, did not win. I think we should be careful not to reintroduce >> that approach indirectly by framing disagreements over the interpretation of >> the winning proposal as conduct violations. > >It is my understanding that participation in Debian generally involves >responsibility of ones actions, and that responsibility is meaningless >without consequences in case of neglect. > >It is my understanding that we have voted down explicit specifics on >*which* consequences neglect related to the involvement of LLM has, and >that we instead voted up, explicitly, to reuse our existing frameworks >for consequences. > >Do I understand you correctly, that in your understanding of our latest >vote, we decided that the use of LLM was *omitted* from disciplinary >actions? Or do you agree with me and your point is simply that you find >it "particularly concerning" that a need for disciplinary action has >occurred so soon after the vote? Or something else? > >I am not trying to trick you here - I genuinely fail to separate what >you express concern over from what you consider our rules. Or if you >perhaps consider rules unimportant (generally or in this conversation). > >On concerns: I am concerned too, that we discuss disciplinary actions. >Those in the DFSG team are dear friends, and I really dislike the >situation we are in right now. I find it particularly concerning that >we ae in this situation so soon after a vote on this very issue. And >now that you bring it up, I do find it interesting (in a bad way) that >we voted against explicit venues for disciplinary actions, because that >to me got us here: In a situation where we don't know what we as a >community want to do when some of us does not follow the rules that we >decide on through a general resolution. > >An no, I am not talking about rules that I or perhaps Ian might want to >replace our current rules - I am talking about the rules that we have. > > - Jonas >
I don't think LLM use should be exempt from existing disciplinary processes, nor do I consider rules unimportant. My point is that we voted against introducing specific disciplinary provisions for LLM-related violations. We instead chose to rely on our existing rules and frameworks. That doesn't mean misconduct cannot be addressed. But an alleged failure to comply with the GR should not automatically be equated with a CoC violation. I also believe disciplinary action should generally be a last resort, not the first response to a disagreement or a disputed interpretation of the rules. There should be room for discussion, clarification and attempts to resolve issues directly before escalating matters to CT or DAM, unless the circumstances warrant immediate intervention. And I think you make a fair point about the DFSG Team being people we know and value as friends and fellow contributors. That makes it all the more important to be careful not to respond disproportionately or reach for disciplinary measures prematurely. So I would really, really wish we could turn down the rhetoric a bit. (And just to be clear, I'm not directing that at this subthread.) If I were on the DFSG Team, I don't think this kind of rhetoric would exactly encourage me to join the discussion.
