Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #117057
| From | Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.devel |
| Subject | Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models |
| Date | 2025-05-05 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <KJ5LP-WbZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <KHW7T-c7G-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <KITUl-OHN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KIX1T-QAr-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 5/5/25 01:58, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 09:24:45PM -0500, Steven Robbins wrote: >>> More information can be found at: >>> https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002 >> >> I guess this is still in "discussion period"? When does that period >> end and >> the vote begin? > > That's described in > https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html#item-A (mostly in A.1). > There is no single numeric answer, but the minimum period is 2 weeks. > "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The maximum discussion period is 3 weeks." This is surprising to me. Does that mean we must start to vote when we reach the maximum discussion period? I just thought I can go back and reply to the detailed issues in the threads after getting through the time trap of paper submission deadline. It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks as I'm completely not available for involving into discussions. At least I'd like to see potential voters to be well informed, as the current status is the number of questions is much greater than answers. Missing a formal "Proposal B" is also an indicator for such situation. I have belief in my proposal. But now it seems the time needed to justify the design details of proposal A is longer than the GR process. For example, proposal A has explicitly defined the scope to one single (and most problematic) case to stay at maximum simplicity. By proposing "XXX is not DFSG-compliant" can directly avoid the trap of "defining what is free software AI within a single GR". That problem is far beyond the capacity that a GR can handle. OSI has spent years on this issue (while I started mentioning this much earlier), and yet they converged into a controvertial definition. I have been arguing on the training data issue at the very beginning of OSI's working group on OSAID and my argument is continuously being ignored. Eventually I no longer bother to argue. I know what I'm doing as a person who simultaneously speaks from @debian.org and trains neural networks (both small ones and large ones) every single day.And now what I mentioned at the very begining of OSAID is exactly the most controvertial point of OSAID after its release. Given the trajectory of OSI's attempt about this, I would like emphasize the proposal A is in my opinion the most problematic and the most vote-able point. Trying to explicitly expand the definition of "DFSG-compliant AI" will result in the expansion of countless troubles and mess up the scope of the GR. Thus, to make the GR proposal practical, it only says "what is NOT" instead of "what IS". As I mentioned in Appendix D "Independence Utopia". It makes me uncomfortable to define "DFSG-compliant AI" before I can really create such a thing with my limited resource for FOSS actitvity. https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg/-/blob/main/AppendixD.txt I think people in the FOSS community understands what simplicity means. Even if we are forced to vote after extension, I'm still very confident in proposal A. It's just a pity that I cannot involve in discussion for my poor bandwidth.
Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Steven Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> - 2025-05-05 04:40 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 08:00 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 17:20 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 17:50 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 20:50 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> - 2025-05-05 22:20 +0200
discussion extension (was: Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> - 2025-05-06 00:30 +0200
Re: discussion extension (was: Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2025-05-06 08:00 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 18:10 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 18:30 +0200
Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2025-05-05 18:30 +0200
csiph-web