Re: Number of options

Hi Antonio,

On 13/08/26 at 07:41 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> [thanks to Kurt for keeping up with this]
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:04:21AM +0800, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > We currently have 7 options on the website and NoTA, so 8 on the
> > ballot. There are 2 other recent options with some seconds, possibly
> > creating 10 options. 
> 
> This is ridiculous, and means that even people who actually agree are
> talking past each other. There are only 2 options: we either a) ban
> LLM-assisted contributions completely, or b) tolerate LLM-assisted
> contributions under a set of constraints.
>
> I understand that Condorcet voting is supposed to be robust in the face
> of multiple options, but I cannot wrap my mind around having 10
> different options for this issue, because that's a fantasy, product of
> our individualist decision-making method. "Oh look, this is mostly what
> I think, but is missing a few bits here and there. I will make my own
> then".
> 
> We are in the eye of the tornado and won't be able or redefine our
> process here and now, so I don't expect to influence the current vote.
> But we would need a process by which we can identify clear, distinct
> directions for votes, and have the texts to be voted on built
> collectively, to avoid this insanity.

My reading is that currently, we have a clear progression between
options on the Ban/Discourage/Allow spectrum:
- A - Ban LLM usage via SC
- G - Ban LLM output; assistive use allowed
- C - Ban LLM in messages-to-humans via CoC; discourage LLM use elsewhere
- H - Discourage; climate destruction is the deal-breaker[1]
- F - Cautious-avoid: encourages avoidance where practical
- B - Permit AI-assisted work with conditions
- D - Accept AI contributions
- E - Neutral: neither endorses nor prohibits

Options also differ on what they state beyond the Ban/Discourage/Allow
spectrum, for example on environmental impact (central in some options,
mentioned in some, not mentioned in some)[2].

So, it's not simple, and I don't really see which options could be
removed, except maybe D. Also I'm not sure that we would have reached a
much better state by building the texts collectively.

Lucas

[1] H is Holger's, not yet on https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.en.html
[2] https://people.debian.org/~lucas/gr-2026-002/comparison.html