On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 04:23:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian"):
> > Quoting text from upstream advisories in bugs like #1142537 will no
> > longer be permitted.
>
> I think it should be obvious that quoting material from elsewhere is
> permitted.
The #1142332 example from Lucas is also quoting, so that's obviously
permitted?
If not, why would it make a difference when quoting LLM output that
had been pasted to an upstream location?
> It's true that there is a scale, with sceptically quoting something
> from an arms-length stranger at one end, and pretending that you were
> wearing a different hat when you got the LLM to write your message at
> the other.
>
> But these parts of the GR text is to be interpreted by the Community
> Team, listmastsers, DAM, and so on. I think we can trust their
> judgement.
I do not have this trust when there is precedent for DAM expelling a member
without prior warning and without hearing the accused before expulsion,
based on an undeclared conflict of interest in the Community Team.
I do also remember a certain "editorial amendments" GR where it was not
clear to voters what was actually voted on until after the vote.
Your approach of dividing LLM usage in "impractical to ban" and
"violations of the Code of Conduct [that] should result in swift but
proportionate disciplinary action" creates a very thin line between
what is unavoidable and what should result in disciplinary action.
"messages to humans must be drafted solely by humans" in the CoC means
that using nmudiff is no longer permitted, and "without LLM assistance"
in the CoC means that a spellchecker that uses AI must not be used.
The former seems unintended, and the latter is on the thin line
between unavoidable and disciplinary action.
"blog posts on Planet Debian must be drafted without LLM assistance"
doesn't leave much space to post about how to use LLMs.
Does the GR intend to ban posts about LLM usage, or should this stay
permitted?
Does "We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from
using this technology." also imply that LLM packages can no longer be
maintained in Debian?
It is puzzling that such a strongly worded anti-LLM GR does not mention
LLM packages in Debian - this is an area that is under our control, and
it should be clear to every voter reading the GR text whether it makes
any decision on this.
> Ian.
cu
Adrian
