On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 07:49:23PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Adrian Bunk dijo [Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 12:52:35AM +0300]: > > > You seem to be saying that a maintainer would not be allowed to ask > > > the question, "Did you use AI", and I don't think option 5 disallows > > > the asking of that question. The contributor might or might not > > > answer the question, but there's also nothing that says that a > > > maintainer is forced to accept a contribution if someone answer the > > > question one way or another --- or not at all. > > > ... > > > > It is problematic when "or not at all" is a disclosure. > > > > When a potential employer in Germany asks an applicant in a job > > interview an impermissible question (e.g. about pregnancy, religion, > > sexual orientation or previous convictions), the job applicant has > > the legal right to tell a lie. > > The GR is a position statement and an expectation of behavior, but it is > not a legal document. >...
Is disclosure of AI usage optional, or is it mandatory and failure to do so might result in punishment in severe cases? Proposals E and F make a clear statement on that. > > ~ 99% of my uploads are NMUs. > > Would it be OK today to upload NMUs without disclosing AI usage? > > FWIW I agree with you using an LLM to prepare an NMU — and then > _double-checking a full diff_, and becoming _personally_ responsible for > any breakage it introduces. > > We should be able to use whatever tools we can, but whatever goes in the > distribution signed by [email protected] is _my sole responsibility_, and I > cannot point fingers at any LLM for doing something wrong. There are separate topic here: 1. Are LLM-assisted/generated changes OK? 2. The person uploading is responsible for reviewing the changes. 3. Do contributors have to disclose AI usage? We are likely in agreement regarding 1. and 2., my reason to vote proposals E and F below the default option is 3. In the MRs linked from [1], the maintainer realized only during review that these might be LLM generated - and got an answer 2 weeks later. This is something I consider problematic, for me it is important that it is clear from the start whether something came from a human or an AI. Disclosure like in [2] and #1142332 should IMHO be mandatory. If Proposal E or F wins the vote, then I will have to accept that a majority of the project has decided that disclosure of AI usage is not required. I used NMUs as an example regarding disclosure, since a 0-day NMU for a release critical bug[3] gives the maintainer no option to review or reject a change before it enters the archive. cu Adrian [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00411.html [2] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/778 [3] I rarely do 0-day NMUs, but the Developer's Reference would recommend them for most of my NMUs
