Thank you Ian, my second also carries over Enrico
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:49:59 +0100 > From: Ian Jackson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > CC: Matthias Geiger <[email protected]>, Andrea Pappacoda > <[email protected]>, Simon Richter <[email protected]>, Antoine Le Gonidec > <[email protected]>, Amin Bandali <[email protected]>, Bill Blough > <[email protected]>, Enrico Zini <[email protected]>, Sean Whitton > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian > X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 27.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Thanks for the feedback. I hereby amend my proposal. > > (Technically, I am proposing and accepting an amendment. AIUI people > who already seconded my version can choose to withdraw their second, > but remain seconders by default. I have CC'd the seconders.) > > 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. > > Changes: > > - Delete paragraph 8 ("may write in their native language"). > > - New paragraph 4a with a narrow exception-making power for > admins/mods. > > - Write "Codes of Conduct" and "the relevant Code of Conduct". > > - Fixed some typos found by ispell. > > I have retained the paragraph numbering to help keep the discussion > clear. I hope the Secretary will be able to renumber them when the > time comes and the ballot options are final. Kurt, please LMK if > you'd prefer me to renumber them myself right away. > > - -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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQJUBAEBCgA+FiEEQWOBFNEyiDslog3dR1FXV9gAJFYFAmpnb9YgHGlqYWNrc29u > QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQR1FXV9gAJFZEyBAAkJYDufPz+Uzl > FPJYcBw+iUcp5hUD0Ikq7gt2520tjUHoGty8WqKP6SAxHRjFhEqo4D9ghlGB6yLs > VZGG9GR4cZm4AA/26nup8FRYz219g15isqB3iw8ceZyFqqLT6eM4imMPu2J+6Tyn > VbdTad8bbUkIIonni8zoRgnr2j4UDhkwDsb05KlsZuu34JBBVP+QdGpBa012rm06 > LsrK3zZsmwMdDZc+d7eAuG629IxbxyLvkXEGwN4MTxQukQZMR1kJazu3n8yVGW/B > t/J9OVmAyYJTAG/rZS901pBbdYupG1mQELh2e6K122ar+BLuUM5blOG8FWi+UgkG > FGczLlX6JjvTpwxZV6doZy+vUTaFDNyQqs9FsTwf2IA4LDOFooTjCxVaKQ/5Sdoh > 0f0oN3u5LXxNz6VhrsN77rr2fuZPHgajUs6hjOxQupgH6DNPE5fePQPIEsA/r7vd > 7K/8DdnGhKgW/3duWBzswNyUWheWS/fZIJLRJI3Nug48QFMJBhO30Ei28BE8JCHo > ET79t5fj+PLNdnTgve3VjdYxMCh1HfqBuCcHHJ773iN5PwV7w0cRULBpL6fSiFlL > iMmzTU5YRgbOqDKr/5y37yvJC8YXxoaDCwji2dZtke9gVE2U0J5JNqHtABWUbW0X > jXpK+Um8dvTmGyPeI+GUb2UQXi9GSS8= > =+uYQ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own. > > Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, > that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
