-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
I hereby second this proposal.
Holger Levsen writes ("ballot option: LLM usage accellerates the destruction
of our ecosystem (planet earth) and that is a deal-breaker"):
> ---- start ballot proposal ----
>
> title: LLM usage accellerates the destruction of our ecosystem (planet earth)
> and that is a deal-breaker
>
>
>
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues the
> following statement describing its current position regarding the use of LLM
> (Large Language Models) within Debian.
>
> We don't have a concern with the LLM _technology_ as such: it's just maths and
> enough training material, which outputs a very large set of numbers that we
> can
> use to infer new material from existing material. But we cannot talk about the
> LLM technology without talking about who is pushing for its usage, who is
> doing
> the training and how, what effect those have on our limited resources, and
> what
> are the economical and political motives of these.
>
> Foremost we don't understand how anyone can agree that global LLM usage
> accellerates the destruction of our ecosystem, planet earth, and not feel like
> that is a deal-breaker.
>
> To often the only response we've seen to this point was that other activities
> are also bad (some even worse) for the climate. How is this even an argument?
> The planet is burning, we should try to stop that as much and as fast as we
> can!
> If others aren't stopping, isn't that even more reason to compensate for their
> irresponsible actions?
>
> And while we're on that point: All of our users live on this planet, so
> protecting this planet is a matter of life and death for all of us. In other
> words, caring about something as big as climate change during our Debian work
> is
> self evident.
>
> Debian recognizes that LLM *also* raise significant ethical, legal, technical,
> and social concerns. These include questions relating to copyright and
> licensing, privacy, the provenance and quality of generated material, the
> health
> of Free Software communities, and the long-term consequences of widespread
> reliance on LLM-generated content.
>
> That said, we would like to emphasize that we condemn LLM (resource) usage but
> not LLM users. Fight the game, but not the players.
>
> We also acknowledge that LLM usage can be hard if not impossible to detect and
> that Debian as a distribution cannot really impose LLM policies on other
> projects we package and distribute. Therefore this text is just a position
> statement. This said however, we appreciate the disclosure of LLM usage.
>
> Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of LLM where
> practical and to prefer human authorship, collaboration, and technical
> understanding over LLM-generated output.
>
> At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and responsibility of
> its contributors rather than prescribing individual workflows. Contributors
> remain responsible for everything they submit, irrespective of the tools used
> in
> preparing a contribution. Existing Debian standards regarding quality,
> correctness, licensing, and legal compliance continue to apply.
>
> The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and professionalism of
> its members. All contributions are under the responsibility of the Debian
> Contributor making it, no matter the technology they have behind. We trust all
> Debian Developers, Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the
> high
> quality values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
>
> Please keep being excellent to each other and the only planet we have.
>
>
>
> ---- end ballot proposal ----
>
> with thanks to Didier 'OdyX' Raboud for
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/08/msg00101.html
> and Bas Wijnen for https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/08/msg00118.html
> and Tobias Frost for
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00343.html
>
> Obviously written without the help of LLM.
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> Holger
>
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
> ⠈⠳⣄
>
> Which Large Language Model do you prefer? The one that claims trans people
> don’t
> exist or the one that doesn’t want to talk about Tian'anmen Square in 1989?
> (@[email protected])
>
> [DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=azcH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
