On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 05:44:09PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 23/07/26 at 18:05 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 03:30:32PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > >,,, > > > > > > On Wed, 2026-07-22 at 21:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > > > 4. **Explicit Disclosure:** When a significant portion of the > > > > > > > contribution > > > > > > > is taken from a tool without manual modification, contributors > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > disclose the tool's use. This may be recorded using Git > > > > > > > trailers, such as > > > > > > > `Generated-By:` or `Assisted-By:`. > > >... > > > I don't want to make it sound like I'm not taking harassment seriously. > > > But I wonder if we could give it a try and, if AI-related harassment > > > becomes an issue in Debian (AFAIK it isn't at this point), evolve our > > > policy later (which would not require a new GR). > > >... > > > > A GR proposal merely suggesting this in a non-mandatory way (should, may) > > would do more harm than good, because then there will afterwards be > > discussions what was actually decided. > > > > Is disclosure mandatory or optional? > > > > If we are doing a GR, then the GR should settle this question. > > The ballot text starts with: > > > Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the > > following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted > > contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the > > time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need > > to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if > > the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus. > > I think that it is useful to have this as a "soft" position statement, > and not as a strict policy document. It's fine if there are other ballot > options that propose a stricter policy.
One could interpret your 4. as the GR deciding that disclosing the tool's use is at least right now not mandatory. > Lucas cu Adrian
