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

Hi,

thank you for your reasoning.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 08:14:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>1/ I believe that it's important for Debian to state that
>LLMs raise many concerns (and not just related to copyright). That's
>what this paragraph is trying to achieve (and I would welcome
>suggestions to extend it from people against LLMs):
>
>> 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.
>
>2/ I believe that a clear set of safeguards is useful to make LLM usage
>by others less inacceptable for contributors who would prefer to reject
>LLMs. Specifically, I think that disclosure is important because some
>contributors might choose to apply different standards to AI-assisted
>contributions (and that's fine).

I do not think that is fine, though. Why would I put a sound suggestion 
on the bottom of the pile or bin it just because it was written with the 
wrong editor or using a mail service I don't like?

>Now I wonder and worry about this:
>
>> 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.
>
>And I wonder if there's a way to improve Proposal B to address this.

Either by removing the specific and interpretable language or by 
writing more and more, which would probably open more doors for 
malicious interpretation.

>But in general, at this point I don't think that we should merge
>our proposals.

Then I'm going to go ahead with my proposal.

Greetings
Marc