Three more technical/drafting points:
Charles Plessy writes ("Signed and updated ballot option: Call the Free
Software community to develop Free AI."):
...
> * AI models should not be used against the authors of their training data.
I think maybe there are some words missing here? Did you mean
"against the wishes of" or something?
> * The output of AI models trained on software that requires that
> derivatives must be distributed under the same terms should
> follow this requirement.
I asked
what do you think is the status within Debian of the output from
"bad LLMs" (the ones that are unethical, according to your
principles) ?
I didn't find your response entirely clear, but I think you are *not*
intending for your ballot option to declare that "bad LLM" output is
a DFSG violation. You're merely voicing disapproval of it. (That is
IMO a more practical position than trying to ban it on DFSG grounds.)
> * Why a GR ballot to decide nothing ? Because there is a GR
> regardless this ballot or not. I am happy to withdraw the
> ballot (proposal, at this stage) if everybody else does so too.
I think your proposal is compatible with, even largely orthogonal to,
the others on the ballot. That is, there would be no contradiction if
the project voted to accept your proposl and also even Matthias's or
mine, or, probably, any of the others.
Do you agree?
If so I don't think it makes sense to present the GR voters with a
ballot that presents your option as an alternative to the others.
Instead, voters should be presented with two separate decisions,
Prior to 2021 the Secretary had a power to split independent GRs [1]
but nowadays it is up to Proposers and Seconders to get this right.
So I think you should consider whether to propose your text as a
technically-separate GR, to run concurrently, rather than an option to
the existing one. Otherwise, for example, someone who agrees with
both your proposal and mine will have a conflict: how do they vote for
both?
Thanks,
Ian.
[1] Examination of Constitutional history:
In the original Constitution [2] A.3(1) said
Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
Discussion. [...]
This gave the Secretary the power to split up a GR into multiple GRs
if the proposals are "independent". In the 2003 GR to adopt Clone
Proof SSD [3] this was changeed to
Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a single
ballot that includes an option for the original resolution, each
amendment [...]
Which is less clear. It still leaves the Secretary with the decision
as to what is "related" but "related" might mean "related in
substance" or "formally proposed as an amendment to that resolution"
(and that question of interpretation is also for the Secretary to
decide).
In 2021 this was deleted completely by the resolution procedure
overhaul [4]. I'm not sure if that was intentional (CCing Russ). I'm
doubtful whether this is a desirable change. Our voting system works
depends on (a) all the interlinked questions being presented together
on the ballot (b) to an extent, extraneous options being split off.
[2] https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation.html
[3] https://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002
[4] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
--
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.
