Re: General resolution: LLM usage in Debian: Second call for votes

Jérôme Charaoui <[email protected]> Thu, 27 Aug 2026 18:32:52 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Le 2026-08-21 à 15 h 32, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> This is the second call for the GR about LLM usage in Debian.
> 
>       Voting period starts      2026-08-15 00:00:00 UTC
>       Votes must be received by 2026-08-28 23:59:59 UTC
> 
> This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
> You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
> For voting questions or problems contact [email protected].
> 
> The details of the general resolution can be found at:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002
> 
> Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
> the vote by sending a signed mail to
>     [email protected]
> with the subject "gr_llm".
> 
> To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
> 
> 
> HOW TO VOTE
> 
> First, read the full text of the options.
> 
> You might also want to read discussions at
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/
> 
> To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
> dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
> The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
> 
>    [email protected]
> 
> The form you need to fill out is contained bellow in this message, marked
> with two lines containing the characters '-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase
> anything between those lines, and do not change the choice names.
> 
> There are 9 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between 1
> and 9. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2
> in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you reach your
> last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 9.
> 
> You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
> equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
> choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
> 
> To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more desirable
> than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of the above"
> choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
> "None of the above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
> unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
> "None of the above" choice by the voting software).
> 
> Finally, mail the filled out ballot to:
> [email protected].
> 
> Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
> that your reply inserts.
> 
> NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
> in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
> encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
> 
> The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
> unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
> (RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
> 
> VOTING SECRECY
> 
> This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
> of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
> a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
> that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
> that your vote is in the list. This secret is sent in an encrypted
> mail.
> 
> VOTING FORM
> 
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> d69f9187-ed2f-40b6-a2eb-4211d3f84d86
> [2] Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract
> [5] Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions
> [1] Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct
> [8] Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
> [ ] Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
> [7] Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI
> [3] Choice 7: Debian is created by humans
> [4] Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker
> [6] Choice 9: None of the above
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
> for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
> secretary, is appended below.
> 
> BALLOT OPTIONS
> 
> Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract
> ===============================================================
> 
>      Preamble
>      --------
> 
>      This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian
>      written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or
>      other generative AI tools.
> 
>      The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):
>      - Debian source packages
>      - Official Debian project software, such as lintian
>      - Debian web resources
>      - Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors
>      - Official communication from Debian
> 
>      It does not include:
> 
>      - Upstream projects using LLMs for development
>      - AI-related software
>      - Upstream patches/security fixes etc.
> 
>      Rationale
>      ---------
> 
>      Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is
>      crucial to Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. It is our
>      belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break
>      things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is
>      contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian
>      contributors.
> 
>      In practical terms, LLM usage raises the following concerns:
> 
>      1.  Copyright
>      -------------
> 
>      LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be possible to
>      copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all of the
>      licenses and copyrights in the training data, or not. Debian Policy
>      and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing and
>      copyright[1][2]. Software and other contributions written
>      conventionally by humans with unclear copyright or license status are
>      not allowed in Debian; LLM output should not have a special exception
>      to this.
> 
>      2. Quality
>      ----------
> 
>      LLM output has many well-known problems with accuracy.[3][4][5] A LLM
>      can never "know" if its output is correct since it merely produces
>      syntactically likely combinations of the training data. In some
>      environments this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For instance,
>      in packaging, each Debian source package is unique. Since packaging
>      syntax and best practices have changed over time, a LLM-produced
>      package will have a mixture of contents spanning the age of the
>      archive, with watch files that do not work, overrides out of context,
>      imaginary copyright, and will generally be unfit for upload. A
>      seasoned Debian contributor with packaging expertise may find some
>      limited usefulness here, but a new contributor cannot, and would not
>      know how to fix it. These same quality and accuracy concerns apply
>      clearly to all of the areas listed in the scope of this proposal
>      above. If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain
>      experts who never leave, this might not be an issue; however,
> 
>      3. Community
>      -------------
> 
>      Debian is a project that is more than just code: it is a community
>      built on shared interests in free software and solving technical
>      problems. Debian intentionally grows this community through many
>      means, and new contributors are always encouraged to join. Allowing
>      LLM contributions breaks this. New contributors submitting LLM output
>      for review places an unnecessary strain on the reviewer, which can
>      lead to burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent new contributors do not
>      actually learn and understand the details of Debian packaging or
>      processes, so they cannot come to replace a former burned out DD.
> 
>      4. Ethics
>      ---------
> 
>      LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as whole by
>      scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for
>      license, copyright, or even established conventions such as
>      robots.txt.[6] This has had a major negative impact on Debian's public
>      web resources, effectively a large scale and perpetual Denial of
>      Service attack on sites that many users rely on. As a consequence
>      parts of our infrastructure were not reachable at all, and JS-based
>      checks had to be enabled. Many other projects were similarly affected.
>      Furthermore, LLM training consumes a staggering amount of
>      resources[7], and the user verification systems that we have been
>      forced to implement as protection waste resources as well. This is
>      blatant disregard for the internet as a public resource, wastes system
>      administrator time, and although individual LLM sessions do not
>      directly use massive resources or DoS the public web, the fact that
>      they can be used at all is a direct result of these unethical
>      behaviours by the LLM companies.
> 
>      Debian has a Social Contract. [8] Our priorities are our users and
>      free software. Debian is Stable. [9] Users and organizations choose
>      Debian because it is reliable and secure.
> 
>      Debian is not here to generate as much code as possible requiring
>      manual review by a shrinking number of human volunteers, or to package
>      every piece of software, or to rush new features, but these are what
>      LLMs are used for.
> 
>      In conclusion, allowing LLM contributions is contrary to the social
>      contract and the common cause of creating a free operating system with
>      a focus on quality and stability.
> 
>      Proposal
>      --------
> 
>      In the interest of not eroding Debian's reputation or further damaging
>      the community, LLM-assisted contributions should be prohibited from
>      inclusion in Debian.
> 
>      Though our position is that LLM contributions are contrary to
>      documents already ratified by Debian, in order to remove all doubt, we
>      propose the following addition to the Social Contract:
> 
>      6. Works Created through the use of Large Language Models (LLMs)
> 
>      We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use
>      or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI
>      tools. Direct contributions are defined as packaging, native Debian
>      software like lintian, documentation and translations written by
>      Debian contributors, and official Debian web resources, etc. Other
>      categories such as upstream projects written with LLM assistance may
>      be included at a later date. This ensures that Debian remains a
>      stable, trusted, and reliable operating system, and protects the
>      interests of the Debian volunteers who make it possible.
> 
>      Possible Issues
>      ---------------
> 
>      Other projects exploring similar decisions have elicited a common
>      reply: "How will you enforce a ban on LLM contributions?" While
>      enforcement could be a challenge, this is a statement of intent by the
>      Debian community, and we trust this community to adhere to it in good
>      faith.
> 
>      Citations
>      ---------
> 
>      [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#copyright-considerations
>      [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>      [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20240614004123/https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/10/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/
>      [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20250328154700/https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html#dives-cot
>      [5] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openais-sam-altman-tells-salesforces-marc-benioff-that-ai-hallucinations-are-more-feature-than-bug-1c035c52
>      [6] https://lwn.net/Articles/1008897/
>      [7] https://tech-insider.org/ai-data-center-power-crisis-2026/
>      [8] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
>      [9] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/pr01.en.html#_what_is_debian
> 
>      Disclaimers
>      -----------
> 
>      Citations are for background information only and do not reflect
>      an endorsement of specific websites.  Some ideas and wording were
>      derived from the sources below.
> 
>      Sources
>      -------
> 
>      GNOME discussion:
>      https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327
>      (CC0) Gentoo AI policy:
>      https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policyxi
>      Codeberg AI policy:
>      https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
> 
>      This document was written by Matthias Geiger and Jesse Rhodes with
>      input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language model
>      assistance.
> 
> 
> Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions
> =========================================================
> 
>      Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
>      the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted
>      contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at
>      the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes
>      without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR
>      process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot
>      come to a consensus.
> 
>      The Debian project recognizes that AI-assisted contributions raise
>      many concerns, e.g. about the technical quality and maintainability of
>      such contributions, and their legal status. AI itself also raises
>      additional concerns, about its impact on society at large, on the IT
>      industry and on Free Software; about its environmental impact; and the
>      aggressive or non-compliant practices of AI scrapers.
> 
>      Nevertheless, many Debian contributors find AI tools helpful when
>      contributing to Debian, and ultimately for improving Debian.
> 
>      Given both the benefits and risks of AI assistance, and the
>      controversial discussions within the community, the Debian project
>      finds it necessary to clarify its position on AI-assisted
>      contributions and establish clear guidelines.
> 
>      The Debian project allows AI-assisted contributions (partially or
>      fully generated by an LLM), provided the following conditions are met:
> 
>      1. *Tooling Legal Compatibility*: Contributors should ensure that the
>      terms and conditions of the generative AI tool do not impose
>      contractual restrictions that conflict with the distribution,
>      modification, or use of the output in the context of Debian.
> 
>      2. *Licensing and Attribution*: If any pre-existing copyrighted
>      materials (including pre-existing code licensed as free software)
>      authored or owned by third parties are included in the AI tool’s
>      output, prior to contributing such output to the project, the
>      contributor should verify they have the right to submit it under the
>      relevant open source license.
> 
>      3. *Accountability*: Contributors assume full responsibility for their
>      contributions, including vouching for the technical merit, security,
>      license compliance, and utility of their submissions. The contributor
>      remains solely accountable for the entirety of these contributions.
>      Contributors should fully understand the proposed changes and be
>      prepared to justify them.
> 
>      4. *Disclosure*: When a significant portion of a contribution is
>      generated or substantially assisted by a tool, contributors should
>      disclose the use of the tool, making it clearly visible to the
>      intended audience. This covers all forms of contribution, including
>      code, mailing list posts, and bug discussions. The form of the
>      disclosure is left to the contributor; one convenient option for
>      commits is a Git trailer such as Generated-By: or Assisted-By:.
> 
>      5. *Prior Discussion of Bulk or Automated Changes*: Similarly to the
>      mass-bug filing process (Developers Reference section 7.1.1),
>      contributors should discuss their intention before submitting bulk or
>      autonomously generated contributions. Any such automated process
>      should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior
>      and output.
> 
>      6. *Confidentiality and Privacy*: Contributors must not use generative
>      AI tools that transmit data to untrusted providers with non-public or
>      sensitive project information (such as embargoed security reports or
>      private communication), as this may lead to the unintended disclosure
>      of confidential data.
> 
> Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct
> =================================================================
> 
>      Summary: Reject LLMs (generative "AI") as far as practical
> 
>      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.
> 
>      5. Moderators and disciplinary teams may make narrow and tailored
>      exceptions to rule 4, and decide on interpretation.
> 
>      6. Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed.
> 
>      7. Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions
>      completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be
>      respected.
> 
>      8. Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of
>      the relevant Code of Conduct and should result in swift and
>      proportionate disciplinary action.
> 
> Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
> ==========================================================
> 
>      Debian as a project does not endorse or recommend the use of
>      generative AI assistants for software development, as it raises
>      multiple concerns about ethics, legality, copyright, etc.
> 
>      Nevertheless, Debian acknowledges that these practices are already in
>      use and here to stay. Rather than banning their use, which seems
>      counter-productive and unenforceable, the project chooses to place
>      responsibility on contributors and therefore defines the following
>      guidelines.
> 
>      *These apply exclusively to code and work done specifically for the
>      Debian project (Debian websites, applications, resources, packages,
>      etc.)*. They do not apply to any upstream work. In what follows, "work"
>      refers to the contributions done specifically for the Debian project.
> 
>      - All code and work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool must
>        comply with the DFSG.
>      - The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted work and:
>        - they sufficiently evaluated and properly understand the work they
>          intend to submit, and are able to explain and defend it;
>        - they put any potential Signed-off-by tag and OpenPGP signatures on
>          the contributions they send to the Debian infrastructure (package,
>          commit, mail, …) themselves;
>        - any content uploaded that would end up in production on Debian
>          infrastructure (main git branch, package upload) has been
>          submitted by them explicitely.
>      - Work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool should be marked as
>        such in the adapted place (commit message, changelog, …). Some
>        lightweight generative tools, such as tab-completion in Copilot, may
>        be used without the contributor realising they rely on generative AI
>        models; we therefore trust submitters to assess when this rule
>        applies. When in doubt, add such marking;
>      - No cloud-based AI shall be used when the data transmitted could
>        either be sensitive to the project (personal data, information under
>        embargo, …) or not public (debian-private discussions, …).
> 
> 
> Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
> ==========================================
> 
>      Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
>      the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted
>      contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at
>      the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes
>      without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR
>      process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot
>      come to a consensus.
> 
>      Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools
>      in the development, maintenance, or documentation of software,
>      packaging, documentation, and other media published within the Debian
>      Project. We recognize that such tools can substantially improve the
>      productivity of contributors when used responsibly, allowing
>      volunteers to spend more of their limited time on work that requires
>      technical expertise, judgment, review, and collaboration.
> 
>      The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions
>      submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were
>      produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness,
>      maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool
>      does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they
>      submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and,
>      where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it
>      into Debian. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material
>      without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian's
>      established development practices. We enourage our contributors to
>      disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not
>      require them to do so.
> 
>      Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by
>      generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in
>      many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright,
>      authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training
>      material. The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal
>      questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a
>      position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part,
>      copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works.
> 
>      Instead, Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility
>      of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to
>      exercise appropriate care when using generative AI tools, to consider
>      the provenance and licensing implications of material they contribute,
>      and to avoid introducing content whose legal status they cannot
>      reasonably justify. Existing Debian policies governing licensing,
>      copyright, software freedom, and the acceptance of contributions
>      continue to apply irrespective of the tools used to produce those
>      contributions.
> 
>      Contributors are expected to exercise appropriate care when designing
>      and implementing workflows that incorporate generative AI tools. In
>      particular, they should ensure that confidential information, private
>      communications, security-sensitive information (such as embargoed
>      information about security bugs that is not yet public), cryptographic
>      keys, credentials, and other non-public material relating to the
>      Debian Project, its infrastructure, or its community are not disclosed
>      to third-party AI services unless such disclosure has been explicitly
>      authorized and is consistent with Debian's security and privacy
>      requirements.
> 
>      The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established
>      expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions.
>      Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact,
>      such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code
>      modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many
>      packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus
>      through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. Any such
>      automated process should be overseen by a human who remains
>      accountable for its behavior and output.
> 
>      This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt
>      from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already
>      expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every
>      contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains
>      accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and
>      suitability for inclusion in Debian.
> 
> 
> Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI
> ==============================================
> 
>      Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues
>      the following statement describing its current position regarding the
>      use of generative AI within Debian.
> 
>      Debian recognizes that generative AI raises significant ethical,
>      legal, technical, and social concerns. These include questions
>      relating to copyright and licensing, privacy, the provenance and
>      quality of generated material, the health of Free Software
>      communities, and the long-term consequences of widespread reliance on
>      AI-generated content.
> 
>      Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of
>      generative AI where practical and to prefer human authorship,
>      collaboration, and technical understanding over AI-generated output.
> 
>      At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and
>      responsibility of its contributors rather than prescribing individual
>      workflows. Contributors remain responsible for everything they submit,
>      irrespective of the tools used in preparing a contribution. Existing
>      Debian standards regarding quality, correctness, licensing, and legal
>      compliance continue to apply.
> 
>      Contributors using external generative AI services should exercise
>      particular care not to disclose confidential information, embargoed
>      security information, credentials, cryptographic keys, private
>      communications, personal data, or other non-public Debian information.
> 
>      Nothing in this resolution should be understood as requiring
>      contributors to use generative AI, nor as preventing contributors or
>      maintainers from choosing not to use or accept AI-assisted
>      contributions. Debian's existing collaborative processes remain the
>      appropriate means for resolving such differences while allowing the
>      project to continue making progress.
> 
>      While disclosure is not required, contributors are encouraged to
>      voluntarily disclose the use of generative AI where appropriate,
>      allowing others who prefer not to interact with AI-assisted content to
>      make informed choices.
> 
>      Such disclosure should be regarded as a courtesy to fellow
>      contributors rather than an indication that AI-assisted contributions
>      are subject to different technical or procedural standards.
> 
>      The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and
>      professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the
>      responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the
>      technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers,
>      Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality
>      values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
> 
> Choice 7: Debian is created by humans
> =====================================
> 
>      Preamble
>      --------
> 
>      This proposal aims to ensure that contributions directly to Debian are
>      created by humans, while at the same time avoiding restrictions on the
>      tools those humans may choose to use when contributing.
> 
>      The proposal deals with direct contributions to Debian, including, but
>      not limited to:
> 
>      - Debian packaging
>      - Submissions (messages, bug reports, patches, etc.) to the BTS,
>        Salsa, mailing lists and other Debian platforms
>      - Debian project software
>      - Debian infrastructure
>      - Debian web resources
>      - Documentation and translation added as part of contributing to
>        Debian
>      - Official communication from Debian
> 
>      The proposal does not cover indirect contributions, i.e. those
>      originating from upstream works.
> 
>      Generative AI is characterized by producing output of a nature that
>      would ordinarily be produced and consumed by humans. The proposal
>      seeks to restrict this output itself from entering Debian (except
>      possibly indirectly, from upstream). It does not seek to restrict
>      Debian contributors from consuming such output as part of contributing
>      to Debian.
> 
>      Rationale
>      ---------
> 
>      Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is
>      crucial to its position in the free software ecosystem. It is our
>      belief that a significant part of this stability comes from Debian
>      contributors having mutual understanding, trust and respect for each
>      others' work and precious time. Generative AI tends to come with
>      practical, legal, ethical or ecological concerns that warrant care or
>      extra work that often ends up being borne by people other than those
>      wielding the AI. We believe that this asymmetry between contributors
>      leveraging generative AI to produce material, and those humans who
>      bear that extra care and work, will erode the project's mutual
>      understanding, trust and respect.
> 
>      While Debian has a long-standing tradition of strict rules for what
>      goes into the distribution, it does not typically dictate what tools
>      people use when contributing to the project. With this principle in
>      mind, the proposal does not affect the use of generative AI as an
>      assisitive tool to explore, research, analyze, critique, etc., when
>      contributing. The responsibilities that come with using the output of
>      an AI in such a role is then not transferred onto the wider project in
>      the same problematic way as when the output itself is the
>      contribution.
> 
>      Proposal
>      --------
> 
>      In order to safeguard the project's mutual understanding, trust and
>      respect, we disallow the output of generative AI as direct
>      contributions to Debian.
> 
>      Those who use such tools assistively in their work are reminded to
>      ensure that the resulting contribution is in line with the DFSG and
>      the Social Contract in general.
> 
>      In summary, humans create Debian.
> 
>      Acknowledgements
>      ----------------
> 
>      This proposal is inspired by GCC's AI Policy [1] and rust-lang's LLM
>      Usage Policy [2]. Its wording is influenced by another ballot option
>      [3].
> 
>      [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html
>      [2] https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/llm-usage.html
>      [3] https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texta
> 
> 
> Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker
> =====================================================================
>      LLM usage accelerates the destruction of our ecosystem (planet earth)
>      and that is a deal-breaker
> 
>      Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues
>      the following statement describing its current position regarding the
>      use of LLM (Large Language Models) within Debian.
> 
>      We don't have a concern with the LLM _technology_ as such: it's just
>      maths and enough training material, which outputs a very large set of
>      numbers that we can use to infer new material from existing material.
>      But we cannot talk about the LLM technology without talking about who
>      is pushing for its usage, who is doing the training and how, what
>      effect those have on our limited resources, and what are the
>      economical and political motives of these.
> 
>      Foremost we don't understand how anyone can agree that global LLM
>      usage accelerates the destruction of our ecosystem, planet earth, and
>      not feel like that is a deal-breaker.
> 
>      Too often the only response we've seen to this point was that other
>      activities are also bad (some even worse) for the climate. How is this
>      even an argument? The planet is burning, we should try to stop that as
>      much and as fast as we can! If others aren't stopping, isn't that even
>      more reason to compensate for their irresponsible actions?
> 
>      And while we're on that point: All of our users live on this planet,
>      so protecting this planet is a matter of life and death for all of us.
>      In other words, caring about something as big as climate change during
>      our Debian work is self evident.
> 
>      Debian recognizes that LLM *also* raise significant ethical, legal,
>      technical, and social concerns. These include questions relating to
>      copyright and licensing, privacy, the provenance and quality of
>      generated material, the health of Free Software communities, and the
>      long-term consequences of widespread reliance on LLM-generated
>      content.
> 
>      That said, we would like to emphasize that we condemn LLM (resource)
>      usage but not LLM users. Fight the game, but not the players.
> 
>      We also acknowledge that LLM usage can be hard if not impossible to
>      detect and that Debian as a distribution cannot really impose LLM
>      policies on other projects we package and distribute. Therefore this
>      text is just a position statement. This said however, we appreciate
>      the disclosure of LLM usage.
> 
>      Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of LLM
>      where practical and to prefer human authorship, collaboration, and
>      technical understanding over LLM-generated output.
> 
>      At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and
>      responsibility of its contributors rather than prescribing individual
>      workflows. Contributors remain responsible for everything they submit,
>      irrespective of the tools used in preparing a contribution. Existing
>      Debian standards regarding quality, correctness, licensing, and legal
>      compliance continue to apply.
> 
>      The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and
>      professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the
>      responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the
>      technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers,
>      Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality
>      values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
> 
>      Please keep being excellent to each other and the only planet we have.
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> 
> mQINBGp/N9gBEACvBLMzpsBdJUSizWA7WWs2mqgTs1MkqfOncyZMXwB0kpm5zSK8
> Qi2ObOQ/TjmpOj0+hX0OiaOpDUy0TYxt/yRYP2ubpFXyLMJFnGLD0sf3522yC2c2
> IHp4g+VsX3jY+alvt0p6djDhwAiKZTZ9G8hKCIJt8avQlulu+5hJraxQPso+DgWA
> SAk9In7Y9xRlUjAh+OjAaxNZdwwFs5TE75wGU2bNckL214J0lU/yWvsHlCUldTSG
> TFGbLiPUHyS8Uul9NL+mmVzHua3AsEg0wLuZ3CCZSbO3IFQKKbKWTa37htYfnSDe
> TNPvY02nCJTy9IB47t8H70A/sbQbMc8BURF/ISG6EsFpNm6ie6kORyCxpgZMT9eH
> qYYMHLw/CFdJo3ysUoKl0f9pK5Km7A0wM06u5VEdI5ZTth2dtC999fh5clB2pWne
> xMamHh0w798zK2XHmuoLOHw1SbKYdxELn0COAHsohxphhdl72YPk35fsJxyfn3rm
> 4RCaEl42PwDfr1cmFb+ZcBlcB3F5Dmsw8rMJJapTj33i7PYo4l89RWKcOOmueXdc
> ux49CqftrkgUUXAEHUKilqjf8Anmzndvqjbz+IzU/a7M8+UGUud36bNCbHtU9nhn
> nXZ8kL5Kd2spVd5/Ch7bkvdLNYm9fEQCO2Hm1x7+Kh28jp1k2iraSZ6B1wARAQAB
> tDBHUjogTExNIHVzYWdlIGluIERlYmlhbiA8Z3JfbGxtQHZvdGUuZGViaWFuLm9y
> Zz6JAj4EEwEIACgFAmp/N9gCGwMFCQAaXgAGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4B
> AheAAAoJEEtiyrevS2QV4J8QAIl93JpjUbEt8c8M8WS+O5cyLhSch22nDoyErmN9
> MWlaBZo2r5ZCiKi6WnbnuXQfxQfz3CS2Q+cVuPKHeO567DrzlTknOugHFLk/OPRO
> ZkkM1msAG2JBnzC++pA5XwcRFB3LSZmpdnjriOpdiG3vffMN06fRBHqjpJaTld6Y
> YkjWJBEqmO+qTG5XzrLFnDohBm0ChMS0F/Z8PeH3LGsmnFp4jd2UwbkS0bi15975
> FG8G07KMJmIbNaeXOgUw4ceIYgQm7sX5GxD0grF0P9Xjm8+Clqma9gjLT0J1WWo4
> 5Z3JFpT5CxdcaDBYTzjnvHtxcv1G1s0nPQPpVen9T2ZW8iiFY4cSv7HnbHJ49LuK
> y2lTtZWDl6h2fxPv+RsEPK4orcMPofVlGTsxPJYdC8zYDTJP09YuaUWyNz/rycuL
> 6GpBgAJ0QwMWz4R2RKvmhKancWrhrbKQal+2H4aYUDGFWj12FAb8exZcQ88qukFq
> I7tjGP6MAjDW4y7bfi+dkip+cCP+aOd6AFUFtDSUVSOMNuvjhwzxN53KtzUhIbSv
> wsdcj2MmgJ6YcTxRC7FMKtfMFGKwBjW+HV+LKDjrHWE1mncS/lnIQyqDaFubxcXu
> +g6Y4wkAuzebIwqNOYEJEDHsqUkIgA05aKzGsFU7K/lgyX3Zc/QkNVe5Vj95i2wC
> ++yniQIzBBABCgAdFiEE5eUlYN2RxVbdvaXQIGTFNkHCXl0FAmp/OD4ACgkQIGTF
> NkHCXl3Oeg/9Fb3P8592zYOjVYlDCW6Ld5BJAO261Kg84RJJoPPzTP6DvknCvAPR
> amSSccEszeZ2T/7PwW5wtZ4Yp6uZew30ALy3QIQGln6INDsB5VOTGSgq8DE01RuO
> q8vLgFcGL2/nzoUjEd8MktPQkd5mWztuqUDRDnjwYr8kQDDumHLec9CG3ewc2xjg
> vBJ6+EuDI/cusQEPK6XAvYgJZ/g3xZMu7bEGAetb1Z8RI8pb1KeE+t0LqOADrv9M
> nnj6W2BwTj3a+hfUuGhwERS3Akqk/1en56/9mZxBl3QueeZky9dv6rX3BcoJrra5
> 3EoVaxpRPgtkJrroj6R3i58yBrYTPUlCfAv84gLrRKMFQosMoz3TLkALZAUC8Jeq
> rbhdsOL+WM/d0aAkKG4EJ0ItijZJQLavFNLdXGtU7WKbJVMpU6ZGQqc/IRp5LsBg
> mf7J4a8O6mmpYFh7djN0TK+w3zox4GDAVhy51LPSqM+KlLdlvtW5UefKtu8J3PJS
> q9wZS3CnwL1hYqL15g1Y1hXU1vr0nFGK9YXjHB4Wcn9kPiS1aY/eEefCKM3P6NGU
> 1vCwQDs1bQIgsKnPnAdZujX4PHLvuqHR65DixwZAGlEWJ6cdYRRITTqSG+A/IMB4
> POYIwX0BPeBwCdtQJzsKibpEqSU7QIgkyYy0SlFHaOKrcXEMV1cD/BK5Ag0Ean83
> 2AEQAKYb8CAhTdQYa8B03kFSHxWloMybfssMg5xNOPs59y2i9Nb1m2jpX/ygkTWc
> g/SEqwrvy3xzwStzm2/jvX1e00jMfA08aYcI0bevx8eVmVQ4sUWSEvDSG+Aik/HV
> c4kSKFgEpvuoz1lbJ69LmJnWa7ueQZzWIGzPtsdLw3w5UyrTYrOXlzbOYiNoJiYQ
> s11RpGaVH0k878ul1jeRUKyngQvV48fTUHjgKQviMQIU2cL5rtafTsoEOzWzZRMy
> CeGpxNn74fxC7fzkTC6CxFdfhi4ofrrS/GdAkD4BVs2lB87/CvOQL/AIOlmlW1ch
> t7Idkqn91kluNg8X9EdJS620JFMubzQgj7nbTexRsx4CZ5+ckZnj1oxSUS0dflBN
> OdoGG/kWxQWJan3SXS0J/32+q9fbpYj3ZCdFED7Y89+foWOXgcZ2U57xPaEPRMAL
> l2snmsXo2rwE1I00CDEvK2O8wJlLPSq2uD/j5UEpjPl0zwIOzYx9B6UzqyzbvzuQ
> CLbS7HpZsm12otwCJ8lfPWwZsbklZV3wxkOehTFxCdvwX/qZ7bNgwsPAyXitc6ZN
> 0wDKsBSw/Zv+m79rr7Vufm181Kz2zHsQnDfQj60psf3hueqKNDzVmHwWaGk+BbMw
> qI5W8iWyzZDCcUQcDwcVCWLlMja2RnWSNX4IpE2DIDdW3s+vABEBAAGJAiUEGAEI
> AA8FAmp/N9gCGwwFCQAaXgAACgkQS2LKt69LZBVwsA//T2zyi3N56MGdW0V+E8aN
> LBvBhdg65WP6AH6AcXt0XTELIuW40zWNxKHvkd72LCaVIU8QsKGLLhRbZcevzfkv
> TgRdYg+ZdsKu0RPi7FrNhtk10LOJBj3dWr1FMpJg6YtbI6fp5f5Fb+YZQ+ej5XCS
> riTHh2wLjC5iU+bLADApCfm6F7sNFC4ZahTeO2azLuyEcL6oGoBT0kAGm6BURHSo
> v0vXZ2JmBDRCuj8/BCg0at5x4ZPdVgGLoRoMIxK2+m6AVtvV5Df3+z/YJQNvI983
> 9sA1PVOxgPexkCWpSNyL4yQHkp7H6nTLI1K5eA6Nyc1WUfEvF4JEY+mSPK2zog/Y
> PFTG8KL+/+afPLvaD0q0d26Pup0QwMOeG1lThFDLvm78z/NTM3QtzV+3sNgHX6k6
> A8FObTBOAMTjeZ/HkNi5yd5LpLQUGZQVRzNZFb+Fc+XNWyUBPGsB9XxseGyxkU/d
> oFS9Hy2I8QJZH1x+CvpybW2yx5nyQZfACl+KsUwdsL/6zZptM2w7XsaIDP6t2jYw
> Iohq1K9ROeTXjzaOiRJYl5CZsd034oFx+otuk3Ce2JESXgLZiuJFqzJurWc8DUzO
> E7ozd1zh937bHfyFh/Xxs6yoyyu+EVbWvshB3P+FgeOkYQujN1vkQ5JsX+mmn4db
> eHYMTHjdI87vzeQFNMxhmIA=
> =DRbR
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
OpenPGP_0xD3F900749268E55E.asc (application/pgp-keys, 4 KB)
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 325 B)