Debian is remarkable for being such a huge project which has successfully held itself together for so long. GRs like this are an essential part of that, allowing controversies to be settled in a way that manages to be both fair and transparent.
> That supports “decisive win” comfortably; whether it qualifies as a “landslide” depends on where the margin threshold is set.
I think the landslide is "pro" vs. "against". The two most "against" options got the lowest rank. Top 4 are all "pro" (with different caveats for each).
Rank Option
θ
i
1 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI 1.794
2 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions 1.430
3 6: A cautious approach to generative AI 1.424
4 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work 1.252
5 8: Avoid LLM use: climate impact 1.007
6 7: Debian is created by humans 0.881
7 9: None of the above 0.762
8 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical 0.683
9 1: Ban LLM contributions via Social Contract 0.474
9 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 9.1 ms ] threadOption E beat literally every other option, so it is an unambiguous Condorcet winner.
Options: https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002
`tally.txt` still unavailable.
https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_llm/results.txt
Debian is remarkable for being such a huge project which has successfully held itself together for so long. GRs like this are an essential part of that, allowing controversies to be settled in a way that manages to be both fair and transparent.
I think the landslide is "pro" vs. "against". The two most "against" options got the lowest rank. Top 4 are all "pro" (with different caveats for each).