Am 11. November 2026 08:11:52 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: >Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-11 02:03:43) >> 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. > >I agree with your point. > >> 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. > >I agree that many post in this thread should ideally be more civilized, >which includes omitting some posts altogether - my post included, no >doubt. > >I agree that it is hardly pleasant for the DFSG Team to enter into a >heated conversation. > >Heat and uncivilized noise aside: What is, in your opinion, the proper >route of escalation here? Because I fail to recognize a different route >than was used. > >I don't ask for the ideal route (i.e. not "It would be better, if..."). >What I ask is which escalations were, in your opinion, unacceptable, >leading you to describe it as not "our existing rules and frameworks" >and "automatically [...] equated with a CoC violation", which is not >how I view Ian's post. > >If Ian's post came "out of the blue", initiating this whole thread, >then sure, I agree with you that it is unacceptably steep escalation to >a demand for intervention by our leader. But it wasn't, so there must >be some of the previous activity in this thread, including the lack of >involvement in this conversation by the criticized team, which you view >as not escalating steps. > > - Jonas >
I realise this discussion didn't start with Ian's post, and I'm not suggesting that nothing happened before it warranted a response. But that doesn't mean every subsequent escalation is automatically proportionate or constructive. I am also not convinced that the rather loud voices in this discussion necessarily represent the consensus of the project. Yet some of the rhetoric seems to assume precisely that, treating a particular interpretation of the GR and its implications as if it were already the settled position of Debian as a whole. I find that problematic, especially when disciplinary consequences are being discussed on that basis. Anyway, I think I've made my point, and I'd rather not prolong this subthread. For further context on why I'm stepping back, see my recent mail to debian-private. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with my concerns, even where we may see things differently.
