Re: consensus on LLM usage

Holger Levsen <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Aug 2026 22:21:58 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 11:55:09PM +0200, David Prévot wrote:
> > agreed, i'm very very sure there won't be any consensus about LLM usage
> > no matter how we'll vote.
> NOTA (Non Of The Above) should already convey part of the statement that no
> consensus has been reached (or sought). Would a plea to No Further
> Discussion help (I don’t think so anymore, so much has already been imposed
> to all of us, asking for less may not reach the target)?

while one of our (old) mottos is 'rough consensus and running code' I
don't think we (need|can achieve) consensus here (on the topic of LLM/AI),
not even rough one.

but that per se is not bad, there are many topics where we don't have
consensus. and that's very fine. you love emacs and i dont. yay.

and there are also some important topics, where we have consensus. yay!

(those are (part of) the basis of Debian.)

-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

"I like beautiful people. I don't care about their looks."

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)