Re: Draft permissive ballot option (was: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian)

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 09:38:28AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>1) It would be wise to add a preamble about it being explicitly a
>"position statement" as per Constitution 4.1.5, to avoid overarching
>interpretation/application in case it wins. (Similar to what Lucas' did
>in his proposal.)

Done.

>2) And speaking of Lucas' proposal, in the interest of avoiding
>over-complicated ballots for voters, I'd like you and Lucas to comment
>on how the two relate to each other.  In my view, at a very high level,
>they are quite similar.

I think that Lucas' proposal has a lot more language about guidelines 
that could lead to an "editorial changes" effect that I deliberately try 
to avoid. I see the numbers 1, 2, and 4 of Lucas proposal having the 
possibility of such interpreatation.

>Lucas' proposal has an additional explicit point about mandatory
>disclosure of AI assistance. Yours doesn't and I'm assuming that's on
>purpose, correct?

I do not have such a strict stance on the attribution clause, but 
seeing AI as just a very powerful tool, why would I want/need to state 
what tools I used to create something that I reviewed and tested after 
its generation. Noone is currently forced to say "I used a jetbrains 
closed source IDE to generate the boilerplate structure of classes foo, 
bar and baz including the getter and setter methods".

>Other than that, Lucas' proposal has more specific
>comments on various aspects/consequences of AI assistance; your doesn't,
>but as a voter I don't see this difference as something that would make
>me strongly favor one option over the other.

Yes, I did not want that in my ballot options as this levels the 
fighting ground for the next rounds.

>So one possible way forward to simplify the ballot, if you two agree,
>would be to have on the ballot your proposal (which is shorter, KISS) +
>and another option which has identical text + a paragraph about
>mandatory disclosure.

I would be willing to build a second ballot options that it basically 
identical but has one or the other more specific option on it, if Lucas 
agrees about that.

Lucas, I would love hearing your opinion about deliberately being less 
specific.

Greetings
Marc