Am Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 01:40:45PM -0600 schrieb Gunnar Wolf:
> ...
> Yes, we are discussing whether this should be allowed or not. But as
> it stands, it is _currently_ not forbidden. I trust Lucas can read the
> social weather and understand this can piss off some people. But,
> again, other than coming to aid Kurt in implementing this change using
> good ol' wetware, I think this is among the most _empathic_ posts in
> the discussion.
There was some help provided to the devotee maintainer, and it seems to
have been useful in addressing a rather urgent practical problem. Our
Project Secretary was facing a real time constraint imposed by the
Constitution. In this situation, the usage of an LLM (by a contributor
who is confident with this technique) helped Kurt to make the necessary
changes to devotee in time to serve roughly 1000 potential voters.
If you think the way this help was provided is inappropriate, I think
the constructive response would be to offer help in a different way —
rather than objecting to someone stepping up to help.
I would like to add that the devotee example illustrates what I wrote
before. An LLM was used to help address a practical problem that
otherwise would have required someone to find the time to implement the
necessary changes manually.
I insist in the idea that we could perfectly go without a patch for
devotee if we would first sit together and draft options that are easier
to decide about. As Antonio wrote before[1] we have
a) ban LLM-assisted contributions completely
b) tolerate LLM-assisted contributions under a set of constraints.
I would prefer if we work on a sensible wording for those options first
and vote about these afterwards.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/08/msg00220.html
--
https://fam-tille.de
