Re: Thoughts about LLM usage

On Monday, August 10, 2026 11:55:58 AM Mountain Standard Time Gunnar Wolf 
wrote:
> Soren Stoutner dijo [Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 11:41:41AM -0700]:
> >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.
> 
> Let me just point out that, since the 2021/2022 vote on “change the
> resolution process”¹, it is no “Further Discussion” any more, but “None of
> the Above”. The semantics are very similar, but not exactly the same
> (i.e. we should not feel compelled to keep discussing if NotA wins over all
> options, we can just accept status quo 🙃)
> 
>   ¹ https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003

Good point.  Somehow I had forgotten that.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1kko
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----