Le Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > After listening to what people have said so far, I think my paragraph > 8 (about translations etc.) is too much of a can of worms. I think > this is probably best dealt with on a forum-by-forum basis by the > moderators. If anyone would prefer the version with paragraph 8, > please do say. If there whoa sufficient support, we could have both > on the ballot. > > I've included scope for moderators to make exceptions. I take Sean's > point that this risks undermining a critical point - hence the "narrow > and tailored" wording. In practice with a resolution like this we > need to trust the moderators, CT, DAM, etc., to honour its spirit. > To my mind the intent is quine clear about the ethics, even if the > operative sections are more woolly.
I think this proposal was better with its section 8. against LLM use for translations, and without the 4.a. exception to LLM use in human communication. Still, I am explicitly sponsoring the amended version that follows. > - -8<- BEGIN PROPOSAL > > [ EDITORIAL NOTE FOR THE SECRETARY: When transposing this into an > actual ballot, please renumber paragraphs and delete this note. ] > > BACKGROUND > > LLMs have many serious problems, including: undermining the mechanisms > of free software community building; environmental damage; > exploitation of authors; disruption to open web hosting by > aggressive scraping; generation and promulgation of bullshit, > polluting the information commons; hazards to users' mental health; > economic bubbles and distortion of the computer hardware market; > fraud; ownership by horrible people and companies; and so on. > Ethical and safe use of this technology is almost impossible. > > Ideally, LLM output should not form any part of software that we rely > on, nor should LLM output ever take the place of human-written prose. > > Unfortunately some of the wider software world, including many of our > upstreams, take a different view. Therefore a complete ban on LLM > output as part of Debian is currently impractical. > > REQUESTS > > 1. We request that all contributors to Debian avoid the use of LLMs in > their Debian work. > > 2. We request that all decisionmakers within Debian discourage LLM use > as much as practical. Practicality is a judgement call and we > recognise that it will involve uncomfortable compromises. > > 3. We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from > using this technology. In particular, the Free Software and Open > Source communities should reject LLMs. We recognise that not > everyone will heed this call. > > REQUIREMENTS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODES 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. > > 4a. Moderators and disciplinary teams may make narrow and tailored > exceptions to rule 4, and decide on interpretation. > > 5. Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed. > > 6. Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions > completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be > respected. > > 7. Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of > the relevant Code of Conduct and should result in swift and > proportionate disciplinary action. > > - ->8- END PROPOSAL
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
