Hi, On 22/07/26 at 19:30 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to offer a ballot option for this GR. It's inspired by the > Linux AI assistant policy. I'm very open to comments and rewrites. > > I'm not sure I want this GR to be implemented in a founding document, so > for now, unlike Matthias's proposal, I'd like my ballot option to stand > on its own rather than modifying a document whose future updates would > require a 3:1 majority.
While I would vote this ballot option above FD, I think I prefer the one I proposed because I think that a GR should focus on discussing the general policy/spirit, not implementation details that can be fleshed out later once the general policy is decided. Specifically: > + all Signed-off-by tags and GPG signatures on anything submitted to > Debian infrastructure (package, commit, mail, …) have been produced > by the submitter, not by an AI assistant; > + commits have been pushed and packages uploaded by the submitter, > not by an AI assistant. This adds arbitrary restrictions to personal workflows. What is the problem with asking a local agent to commit and push to a branch (so that it can later fetch and analyze salsa CI results)? > - Work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool must be marked as such > with an "Assisted-by: AGENT:MODEL:VERSION[:TOOL]" trailer in the > appropriate place (commit message, changelog, …). Some lightweight > generative tools, such as tab-completion in Copilot, may be used > without the contributor realising they rely on generative AI models; > we therefore trust submitters to assess when this rule applies. When > in doubt, add the trailer. I don't think that this level of detail should be specified in a GR. Lucas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
