Re: Thoughts about LLM usage

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:41:41 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<8718608.T7Z3S40VBb@soren-desktop>
On Monday, August 10, 2026 9:47:53 AM Mountain Standard Time Bdale Garbee 
wrote:
> Andrey Rakhmatullin <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:48:44AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> the "bah so
> >>
> >>many choices why do I even bother" effect is still a concern
> >>
> > At this point I'm afraid it's inevitable for most GRs and we can't do
> > anything for that short of changing the culture (and I think there is
> > always someone who says "we should have many choices" in this GR) or
> > providing summaries and comparisons.
> 
> To me, a GR with many options is evidence that our collective
> understanding of a topic has not yet reached the point where a GR
> is the obviously correct next step.

That’s the beauty of the Further Discussion option.  If there isn’t enough 
consensus in Debian for any of the options to be selected, then Further 
Discussion wins.  That, in and of itself, is both a valid and useful outcome.  
It says that the project has selected the status quo above any of the other 
options.

Among other things, if the project selects Further Discussion, it would mean 
that no one should feel justified in attacking any other member of the project 
for using AI as long as the output quality met the project’s standards and any 
generated code is DFSG-free.  Because options that would allow banning such AI 
use would have lost to Further Discussion.

What we would end up with is the status quo, which is that every Debian 
Developer can choose how they want to engage with AI.  In many regards, option 
5 is an attempt to capture the status quo in writing.  The difference between 
option 5 winning and Further Discussion winning is that option 5 would make it 
more explicit that the project as a whole is generally satisfied with the 
status quo, making it less likely to change in the future (although option 5 
explicitly states that the project’s views towards AI may change in the 
future, including without the need for GR).  Because we have an option that 
simply codifies the status quo, if Further Discussion wins that means that the 
project is not satisfied with the status quo and expects it to change in the 
future, but is uncertain as to how it should change.

If we do end up with Further Discussion, I expect there will indeed be further 
discussion, and that at some point in the future the project’s opinions will 
coalesce and a future GR will be proposed.

However, even though we do have many options, I think that at least one of 
them will beat Further Discussion and we will emerge from this with a 
consensus on how the project as a whole feels towards AI.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)