# Debian General Resolution: "LLM usage in Debian" — Ballot option comparison

- **Published options / full text:** https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002
- **Corrected ballot (authoritative choice numbering & text):** https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/08/msg00279.html

All eight proposals below come from the vote page (Proposals **A–H**), appearing on the corrected ballot as **Choices 1–8**. Choice 9 ("None of the above") is part of the ballot too; it is not a policy option, so it is included below as a column of `—` (N/A) cells only, to let the interactive page rank it alongside the others.

| Ballot # | Letter | Title (as printed on the ballot)                          | Proposer              |
|---------:|:------:|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| 1        | A      | Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract      | Matthias Geiger       |
| 2        | B      | Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions            | Lucas Nussbaum       |
| 3        | C      | Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct     | Ian Jackson           |
| 4        | D      | Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work            | Pierre-Elliott Bécue  |
| 5        | E      | Responsible Use of Generative AI                            | Marc Haber            |
| 6        | F      | A cautious approach to generative AI                        | Tobias Frost          |
| 7        | G      | Debian is created by humans                                 | Gard Spreemann        |
| 8        | H      | Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker | Holger Levsen        |
| 9        | —      | None of the above                                           | *(not a proposal)*   |

This document reproduces the analysis described in `SPEC.md`. The interactive HTML version (which adds column controls, ordering buttons, and a ballot auto-fill panel) is in `comparison.html`.

> ⚠️ **This comparison was auto-generated with AI assistance and may contain errors or mischaracterizations.** Please read and understand each proposal's full text (linked from the [vote page](https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002)) before casting your ballot.

| Point | 1 (A) · Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract | 2 (B) · Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions | 3 (C) · Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct | 4 (D) · Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work | 5 (E) · Responsible Use of Generative AI | 6 (F) · A cautious approach to generative AI | 7 (G) · Debian is created by humans | 8 (H) · Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker | 9 · None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **1. Overall stance** | **Ban** — "expressly forbid any contributions…"; "prohibited from inclusion" | **Permit-with-conditions** — "allows AI-assisted contributions…provided the following conditions" | **Discourage** — "Reject LLMs as far as practical"; "complete ban…impractical" | **Accept** — "already in use and here to stay"; "banning…unenforceable" | **Neutral** — "neither endorses nor prohibits" | **Cautious-avoid** — "encourages contributors to avoid…where practical" | **Ban** (of AI *output*) — "disallow the output…as direct contributions"; assistive use allowed | **Discourage** — "climate destruction is a deal-breaker"; "just a position statement" | **None of the above** |
| **2. Binding mechanism** | New Social Contract point 6 (static amendment) | §4.1(5) statement, evolving current position | CoC supplement (requirements) + non-binding requests | Project guidelines (no constitutional instrument cited) | §4.1(5) statement, evolving current position | §4.1(5) statement, evolving current position | GR decision only (no SC / CoC / §4.1(5) text) | §4.1(5) statement, "just a position statement" | — |
| **3. Scope** | Debian-only; upstream excluded. Msg-to-humans: official communication only | All Debian contributions (code, mail, bugs); upstream not addressed | Debian and beyond ("everyone"); msg-to-humans explicitly covered; upstreams addressed via requests | Debian-only; upstream explicitly excluded; msg-to-humans covered (mail, commits) | All Debian contributions; upstream not addressed | General Debian work; upstream not addressed | Debian-only *direct* contributions; upstream excluded; msg-to-humans covered (BTS, Salsa, lists) | Debian work; upstream out of scope (cannot impose on other projects) | — |
| **4. Disclosure** | N/A (ban) | **Required** (form left to contributor; Git trailer `Generated-By:` / `Assisted-By:` mentioned) | **Required** (any LLM use for Debian work must be disclosed) | **Required** (with lightweight-tool carve-out, e.g. tab-completion) | Encouraged (not required) | Encouraged (courtesy; not required) | N/A (output banned) | Encouraged ("we appreciate the disclosure") | — |
| **5. Maintainer may refuse** | N/A (ban) | Not addressed | **Yes — explicit** (projects and maintainers may ban; upstream bans must be respected) | Not addressed | Not addressed | **Yes — explicit** (nothing prevents refusing; via existing collaborative processes) | N/A (ban) | Not addressed | — |
| **6. Maintainer may accept** | N/A (ban moots acceptance) | **Yes — explicit** (project-level allow) | Implicit (not prohibited outside msg-to-humans unless banned) | Implicit (not prohibited) | Implicit (not prohibited) | Implicit (not prohibited) | N/A (ban moots acceptance) | Implicit (not prohibited) | — |
| **7. Bulk / automated changes** | Not addressed | **Yes** (prior discussion per DevRef §7.1.1; human oversight) | Not addressed | Not addressed | **Yes** (prior discussion & consensus; human oversight) | Not addressed | Not addressed | Not addressed | — |
| **8. Confidentiality / privacy** | Not addressed | **Yes** (embargoed/private info; no untrusted providers) | Not addressed | **Yes** (personal data, embargo, debian-private) | **Yes** (embargoed, keys, credentials, non-public) | **Yes** (confidential, embargoed, credentials, personal data) | Not addressed | Listed (privacy among concerns) | — |
| **9. Legal / copyright treatment** | **Central rationale** (SC/DFSG clarity; cited reason #1) | **Addressed** (tooling legal compatibility + licensing verification as conditions) | Listed-only (author exploitation in background) | **Addressed** (DFSG compliance required) | **Deferred** (does not resolve legal status; relies on existing policy) | Listed (existing standards continue to apply) | Listed (DFSG/Social Contract compliance) | Listed (copyright/licensing among concerns) | — |
| **10. Enforcement** | Good-faith intent (statement of intent; trust community) | Contributor accountability (contributor solely accountable) | **CoC disciplinary action** (swift and proportionate) | Contributor accountability (submitter solely responsible) | Contributor accountability (responsibility rests with contributor) | Good-faith (trust in judgment) | Not addressed (no enforcement language) | Good-faith (trust in judgment) | — |
| **11. Environmental / climate** | **Yes** (training consumes "staggering" resources; data-center power cited) | Listed (environmental impact as concern) | **Yes** (environmental damage listed) | Not addressed | Not addressed | Not addressed | Listed (ecological concerns, generic) | **Central rationale** (ecosystem destruction; planet is burning) | — |
| **12. Broader-ethical impact** | **Yes** (scraper DoS on Debian infra, robots.txt disregard, resource waste) | Listed (aggressive/non-compliant scraper practices) | **Yes** (scraping, author exploitation, fraud, "horrible" corporate owners) | Listed (ethics concerns, generic) | Not addressed | Listed (ethical/social concerns, generic) | Listed (ethical concerns, generic) | Listed (ethical/social generic; economic/political motives) | — |
| **13. Community sustainability** | **Yes** (reviewer burnout; new contributors fail to learn) | Not addressed | **Yes** (undermines community building; pollutes information commons) | Not addressed | Not addressed | Listed (health of Free Software communities) | **Yes** (burden asymmetry erodes trust and respect) | Listed (health of Free Software communities) | — |

## Legend / notes

- **Stance order** (restrictive → permissive, used by the "Progressive order" button in `comparison.html`; the "Reverse progressive order" button arranges them in the opposite direction): **Ban** → **Discourage** → **Cautious-avoid** → **Permit-with-conditions** → **Accept** → **Neutral**.
- **Binding mechanism** also records whether the statement is framed as an evolving "current position" (changeable without a new GR) vs. a static foundation-document amendment. Options 2 (B), 5 (E), 6 (F) and 8 (H) are explicitly evolving §4.1(5) statements; 1 (A) amends the Social Contract; 3 (C) supplements the Code of Conduct.
- "N/A where a ban moots the question": a ban removes the need for disclosure, refusal, or acceptance rules (1/A and 7/G).
- Column labels use the **ballot choice number** (1–9) as the primary identifier; the **letter** (A–H) follows in parentheses for cross-referencing the vote page's Per-proposal sections. Choice 9 ("None of the above") has no letter and is shown as a `—` (N/A) column here; in `comparison.html` it participates in column reordering and ballot generation so you can position it to rank it.