Hi, On Wed, 2026-07-29 at 01:50 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > That's another can of worms. Nowhere in the social contract do we > promise any focus on interacting with AI bots. Would you want to force > people to spend time on dealing with the kind of slop "bug reports" > that the curl project has been infamously dealing with?
No, I do not want to force people to deal with slop "bug reports". Let me give a concrete example: consider all bug reports titled "some remarks and editorial changes for this man page" from [1]. They are very low quality, i.e. slop, and often are about generated files where a fix would require changing the generator. The submitter ignored any communication about improving them and the existing guidelines about mass-bug filings. After an eventual ban from the BTS, the submitter started to bypass the BTS and contacting package maintainers directly: +--- | Mails from me to "[email protected]" are no longer | acknowledged.ย A Debian maintainer told me, that he would | contact the mail administrator about me not wanting to send bugs | upstream. +--- I don't care whether this is a run-away AI agent or human submitting these slop bug reports. I'm not even sure which of these is the case here... Could you tell? And I'm tempted to just close every bug to avoid having people waste their time with them. Should we do that? Does it matter whether it was an AI agent or a human for this? Ansgar [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;submitter=bjarniig%40simnet.is
