Re: Ballot option: Debian is created by humans

Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> writes:

> On 12/08/26 at 10:36 +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>> > "Theodore Tso" <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 04:10:00PM -0500, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> >>> The proposal deals with *direct* contributions to Debian, including, but
>> >>> not limited to:
>> >>> 
>> >>> * Debian packaging
>> >>> * Submissions (messages, bug reports, patches, etc.) to the BTS, Salsa,
>> >>>   mailing lists and other Debian platforms 
>> >>> * Debian project software
>> >>> * Debian infrastructure
>> >>> * Debian web resources
>> >>
>> >> What is meant by "Debian infrastructure" or "Debian web resources".
>> >
>> > I meant computers run by the project, and web services run by the
>> > project.
>> 
>> In light of other people reading my distinction between "direct" and
>> "indirectly" differently than I had intended, I should clarify: The
>> above is not intended to forbid Debian from running in its
>> infrastructure software that has AI-generated parts, as long as those
>> are upstream parts of that software. Say for example a HTTP server. That
>> AI is *indirectly* a part of Debian (or in this case the Debian
>> infrastructure). Software written directly *for* Debian infrastructure,
>> on the other hand, would be affected. Think for example a
>> (Debian-bespoke) web service backend serving some of the requests of the
>> above HTTP server.
>
> So, if your proposal were to pass, that means that services such as
> debaudit.debian.net (developed with massive AI assistance) or
> udd.debian.org (maintained and developed with AI assistance since about
> a year ago) should be shutdown, right?

Hi,

That depends on what "AI assistance" means. If their code is written by
an AI, then yes, those would be disallowed by the proposal. The proposal
specifically does not target the use of an AI as assistance in the
process of writing the code, such as for research, critique, planning,
etc.

Assuming it's the former: The thinking isn't that these services aren't
useful. Or that the AI's work is bad. Or that your work is bad. It's
the fundamental asymmetry that exists between the creation of the code
that constitutes the services, and the future life of that code within
the project.

I realize that what I write may come off as "you didn't do any work in
making the code, and now you're giving others the job of future
maintenance of the code", something which would be especially ridiculous
coming from someone who has not and probably never will share in the
maintenance burden of those services! I hope that what I write isn't
interpreted in that way. It certainly isn't my intention.


 Best,
 Gard