50
General resolution: LLM usage in Debian: First call for votes: corrected ballot (lists.debian.org)
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What do you think it'll happen and what do you want to happen?

Debian developers have been considering a general resolution over LLM usage within the project. After collecting a variety of proposals, voting has now commenced for Debian developers to decide how comfortable they are with AI / Large Language Model contributions in the project or not.

The choices being considered for this Debian general resolution (GR) include:

[ ] Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract

[ ] Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions

[ ] Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct

[ ] Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work

[ ] Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI

[ ] Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI

[ ] Choice 7: Debian is created by humans

[ ] Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker

[ ] Choice 9: None of the above

All the details on each of those choices can be found via the Debian.org vote page.

Additional details in this mailing list post with the voting details on the general resolution. The voting period began at midnight and is set to run through end of day 28 August.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

What is this, a Monty Python skit? How the fuck are they gonna come with a consensus with all these choices?

There's really just choices 1 & 2. The rest are just elaboration. And what the fuck is even 'none of the above'?

Really, there's just 'yes' and 'no'. If it's a 'yes', there would certainly be condition, which can come later. If it's a 'no', who give a shit why; it's a vote, not a fucking book club. They can definitely put the reason in the comment, but do they really need to put the reasons as the choice?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    First time?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    Long time Debian user. First time really paying attention to their governance process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    Long time Debian user and governance appreciator. Welcome. If you want some schizophrenia inducing reading material you should go back and check the long and well documented history of Debian voting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

    especially the adoption of systemd that was decided by only 4 people back around 2014. lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 child)

    Where did you pull that number from? https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_initsystems/results.txt

    The smallest difference between a systemd option and a “not-only-systemd option” I see is

    Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 211 - 177) = 34 votes.

    And bear in mind that condorcet selects the most agreeable option, not just the majority option.

    And it makes sense: the most likely contender at the time was upstart, which didn't stand the test of time AFAIK (I don't think the systemd hater crowd still uses that)

    So it ended up the right decision. Would they have decided differently if other good init systems had existed already? Maybe, but they didn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (1 child)

    So it ended up the right decision. Would they have decided differently if other good init systems had existed already? Maybe, but they didn't.

    Nothing, really, is stopping them from making it easier to use other init systems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago

    The 1st round should be yes, or no.

    Choice A in the developer poll still allows for ai

    "It does not include:

    Upstream projects using LLMs for development
AI-related software
Upstream patches/security fixes etc."
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 18 hours ago

    I would say it’s okay with more than yes/no. You could say yes, but only if code review by human. The difference is that if you can only say yes or no, you would have to say yes, but then don’t know if the details of the final rules of AI in the project would actually be a dealbreaker for you. However, these options are a little too much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent