Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:55:59 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<7oakzowvsshe6wrtst6mxtbxqlsjgw65q5ejcqjbh5lcpqnkf5@3yugtyae2sgk>
Hi Ian,

First, you might want to change something here then:

https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

"Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing lists
where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on debian-user-french)."

While I wholeheartedly support the principles of this proposal, I believe that
points 4 and 6 are impractical and will create significant barriers (borderline
discrimination) for non-native English speakers, especially newcomers, within
the Debian community.

Also, when you point the Code of Conduct you might want to be more precise, as
we have one for Debian in general, one for Debian mailing lists and another one
for our conferences.

Bests,

-- 
Tiago Bortoletto Vaz

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Matthias Geiger writes ("GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian"):
> > What follows is a GR proposal to ban LLM contributions.
> 
> Thanks for this.  Obviously, I agree, and I have seconded your option.
> But I worry that it might not reach the 3:1 majority required to amend
> a foundation document.  Also it has given rise to a lot of
> interpretative nitpicking.
> 
> I wrote an alternative proposal below which is intended to
>    - avoid legalistic prescriptions which need to be nitpicked
>    - recognise that we're in a difficult situation
> It is (effectively) a set of requests to existing teams and a
> supplement to the Code of Conduct.
> 
> 
> - -8<- BEGIN PROPOSAL
> 
> 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; 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 CODE 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. 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 Code of Conduct and should result in swift but proportionate
>    disciplinary action.
> 
> 8. Any contributor who feels they cannot write in English without
>    assistance, may write in their native language, and expect readers
>    to use translation tools of their choice.  In that case a
>    human-written English summary would be very welcome but is not
>    required.  In any case we promise not to shame anyone for any
>    linguistic mistakes.
> 
> - ->8- END PROPOSAL
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> iQJUBAEBCgA+FiEEQWOBFNEyiDslog3dR1FXV9gAJFYFAmpjg8wgHGlqYWNrc29u
> QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQR1FXV9gAJFZyPg//WFcBt7E3JnAl
> XKeFCxR9L1wh2BbGF1O1nkrUAmFjZ9dSIYOob5Rftepy9jryUBPF8X7JL3iaCUMJ
> 60qURMcMC9+hN3P2Kl1RpeEYj08EfBKDzPAWfJsZ8eLZEFUHhYz/MYcAK9MHw2Ad
> d9H/BdtPFTqYDe4kj2oauYxrpxhUFa84hSABKzszZnK/dF7tzlnjHVBowN8p9CmI
> l6lqHrwULXWkSS+XU2Wa9xXoBqLTkTKsq4OWi5HDuKGNwegGri1vDS5+1RD6vC6s
> SVso+4BaEeOdrBaTFXFEECTF0zNEfNrq4Ak0XdKz9tP2m/NnG20irXWpaq99bb28
> 2y1yCN0xmCpUIO7DNnOGN8pLwPZnvLjnZTEZqoLOrf7TNhmK1HD6KmFQfA+lAVnR
> sWLf6BfPPz94y4nijEN/vklRzR8RXWWt4SpNyGXc82Dqt4zE0mAqs30G9ZvK18Gh
> d8oT+SC9MJPUhLsloGXMXaYKnmuIzxp89h6VL+Ab2UmArX8MRrcY2aGjCiDzd3L8
> p2ZSfHpbmTDa7xZKb3c+eM3QBEy0HI2MDwixlOcAKwS6ZKneO/trEibD9CoNG0tL
> tiySKOeIBt6fLnks3l6EQHPIwBLRcpTUlaoFFgU6Q/zNDvnTkVvnIrQYhB86Bak+
> wUTKiUjFezFU1PL9dSIPzZbd7d/eC9Y=
> =2G1U
> -----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 (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)