On Sat, Aug 29, 2026 at 06:34:31PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2026 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not > > acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, > > copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software > > communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web. > > That may be at least partially caused by the option set we had, and the lack > of uniform structure of those: if you want to decide on a set of related but > distinct questions (e.g. whether to allow using LLMs for debugging, whether > to allow using LLMs for writing, whether to require attribution and whether > to make statements on a couple of topics) what you want is this a set of > distinct questions, not a subset of the cartesian product of the answers, > with every option phrased differently and most omitting some of the > questions. But that's not how we structure our GRs. > > It may be possible to resolve some of the still unclear questions with > follow-up GRs.
One topic we did already decide now is: We enourage our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not require them to do so. Undisclosed AI usage in code/emails/bts/... is not something I would call "Responsible Use", but I have to accept that the majority has decided that this is OK in Debian. cu Adrian
