Hi, I'd like to offer another perspective, namely that of a non-native English speaker.
For me, LLMs have not replaced thinking; they have lowered the language barrier to participating in Debian discussions. Before I used them as a writing aid, I was often reluctant to engage in lengthy policy or technical debates because I knew how much time and effort it would take to express my thoughts clearly in English. Meanwhile, native speakers - and others with stronger writing and debating skills - could often formulate precise rebuttals much more easily. As a result, I frequently chose not to participate, even when I felt I had something worthwhile to contribute. On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > REQUIREMENTS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT) > > 4. Within Debian, messages to humans (including for example bug > reports, mailing list messages, discussions on Salsa, and blog > posts on Planet Debian) must be drafted solely by humans without > LLM assistance. … > 8. Any contributor who feels they cannot write in English without > assistance, may write in their native language, and expect readers > to use translation tools of their choice. In that case a > human-written English summary would be very welcome but is not > required. In any case we promise not to shame anyone for any > linguistic mistakes. > > - ->8- END PROPOSAL I am not convinced by requirement (4). Debian is an international project. Many contributors, myself included, are not native English speakers. Participating effectively on Debian mailing lists often requires not only technical expertise but also the ability to write well-structured, precise, and persuasive English. Native speakers, especially those who are highly experienced writers and debaters, already have a significant advantage. They can express subtle distinctions, spot ambiguities, and formulate rebuttals much more easily than many non-native speakers. That is nobody's fault, but it is a real asymmetry. For me, using an LLM to help structure my own thoughts, improve the flow of an argument, or suggest clearer wording is fundamentally different from asking it to generate my opinions or write a message on my behalf. The ideas, reasoning and conclusions remain my own; the tool merely helps me communicate them more effectively. The LLM helps me express my arguments; it does not determine what those arguments are. Requirement (8) does not provide an equivalent alternative. Debian's common working language is English, and participating directly in that language is important for effective discussion. Being told that I may instead write in my native language shifts the burden of translation onto every reader, makes interactive discussion more cumbersome, and risks losing precisely the nuances that matter in policy discussions. I do not want to avoid communicating in English; I want to communicate my own ideas in English as effectively as I can. The practical consequence of requirement (8) for me would not be that I start writing in German. It is that I would likely participate less often. Requirement (4) does not distinguish between delegating authorship to an LLM and using an LLM as a language or writing assistant. A blanket prohibition on any LLM assistance for communication would therefore make it harder for contributors like me to participate on equal terms in technical and policy discussions. Those least affected are often native speakers with an excellent command of written English, while the burden falls disproportionately on international contributors. If the concern is authenticity of communication, then the resolution should target substantive AI-generated content or undisclosed delegation of authorship, rather than banning all forms of language assistance. I believe there is an important distinction between using an LLM as the author of a message and using it as a writing assistant for ideas that are entirely one's own. Requirement (4) currently treats both cases identically. If the goal is to preserve authentic human communication, I believe the resolution should target delegated authorship rather than all forms of language assistance. -- tobi P.S.: In the interest of transparency: I used an LLM to help structure this message and improve its English. The opinions and arguments are my own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
