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
(...) What we would end up with is the status quo, which is that every Debian Developer can choose how they want to engage with AI. In many regards, option 5 is an attempt to capture the status quo in writing. The difference between option 5 winning and Further Discussion winning is that option 5 would make it more explicit that the project as a whole is generally satisfied with the status quo, making it less likely to change in the future (although option 5 explicitly states that the project’s views towards AI may change in the future, including without the need for GR).
Right, I agree with your analysis here. (My brain played the trick on me repeatedly while reading your mail, so I had to re-read it to be sure you weren't talking about “Führer Discussion” :-Þ )
