On Nov 11, 2026 16:32, Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > So my agenda here
Everyone did notice you do have an agenda, no doubts. is to limit the broad-scale use of LLMs in Debian to > situations where we have consensus, *as decided by the GR*. But not everyone agrees with your lecture of the GR proposition 5 that won. It has in it: " Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to exercise appropriate care " AND a consensus part. So which one is it? Some may argue on the direction of individual own judgment. The part that you are using I guess is I am guessing: " 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 wording is "should" not "must", and in no ways it was written about any sanction. So which one is it? Individual judgment or consensus? Well it depends if you see the LLM reviews are: " other automated changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors " It has been written that it doesn't change much and that this is just some optional help, not changing the workflow. Without arguing from one side or another, I just want to say that you are wrong about the established fact that the DFSG team is in violation of what we voted for. This is in fact not clear at all. Cheers, Thomas Goirand
