Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #117055 > unrolled thread

Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

    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

#117055 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Friday, May 2, 2025 5:46:28 a.m. Central Daylight Saving Time Debian 
Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> A General Resolution has been started about Interpretation of DFSG
> on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
> 
> 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?

Thanks,
-Steve

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#117056 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.


-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117057 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117058 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 11:15:01AM -0400, Mo Zhou 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. 

That's unfortunate.

>Does that mean we must start to vote when we 
>reach the
>maximum discussion period? 

A.3.1:

"After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will publish 
the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may do this 
immediately following the end of the discussion period and must do so 
within seven days of the end of the discussion period."


>It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks 

Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
The project consensus, especially after 
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003, seems to say that we don't want 
multi-month GR discussions.


-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117062 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
>> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks 
>
> Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
> The project consensus, especially after 
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003, seems to say that we don't 
> want multi-month GR discussions.
>

Not quite. Proposal A is mature and I'm confident in it.
Potential proposal B,C,D,... are premature.
I have no intention to let people holding different opinions
to have a very short time to prepare a formal proposal B,C,D.

But, the whole series of discussions started 7 years ago.
And I have already mailed everywhere about my intention
to submit the GR. If there is no proposal B, that could mean
it is really difficult to formally write a proposal B.

I lean towards going ahead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117068 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:49 PM Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> wrote:
> On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> >> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks
> >
> > Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
> > The project consensus, especially after
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003, seems to say that we don't
> > want multi-month GR discussions.
> >
>
> Not quite. Proposal A is mature and I'm confident in it.
> Potential proposal B,C,D,... are premature.
> I have no intention to let people holding different opinions
> to have a very short time to prepare a formal proposal B,C,D.
>
> But, the whole series of discussions started 7 years ago.
> And I have already mailed everywhere about my intention
> to submit the GR. If there is no proposal B, that could mean
> it is really difficult to formally write a proposal B.
>
> I lean towards going ahead.

I don't believe we have enough information to do the GR now (or one
week from today, the longest we can delay). I am unclear on whether
existing packages in Debian are affected. Your proposal does not
indicate whether the GR would be effective immediately.

My suggestion is for you to ask the DPL to extend the discussion
period by a week (for constitutional reasons) followed by an immediate
withdrawal of the GR. Withdrawing the GR allows you to resubmit later
and wait 2-3 weeks from that point.

Thank you,
Jeremy Bícha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117070 — discussion extension (was: Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Hi Andreas,

According to constitution A.1.6, would you mind helping us extend
the discussion period by a week?
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

>From the feedbacks I've heard, there are a couple of problems we are
facing currently.

* Myself being confident in proposal A is one thing. But the audience
  of this GR needs more information in order to make a well-thought
  vote, while I'm suffering from low bandwidth in recent weeks.

* People holding different opinions have really short time to prepare
  a formal polished proposal.

Maybe those factors indicate this is not the best time to vote.
I'm considering whether I should withdraw the proposal, collect more
information to fill up the overlooked aspects, further polish the
proposal A, and come back when it is ready. Doing so also allows
enough time for proposal B,C,D... since people know that I'm really
pushing this forward now.


On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 16:09 -0400, Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:49 PM Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> wrote:
> > On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> > > > It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks
> > > 
> > > Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
> > > The project consensus, especially after
> > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003, seems to say that we don't
> > > want multi-month GR discussions.
> > > 
> > 
> > Not quite. Proposal A is mature and I'm confident in it.
> > Potential proposal B,C,D,... are premature.
> > I have no intention to let people holding different opinions
> > to have a very short time to prepare a formal proposal B,C,D.
> > 
> > But, the whole series of discussions started 7 years ago.
> > And I have already mailed everywhere about my intention
> > to submit the GR. If there is no proposal B, that could mean
> > it is really difficult to formally write a proposal B.
> > 
> > I lean towards going ahead.
> 
> I don't believe we have enough information to do the GR now (or one
> week from today, the longest we can delay). I am unclear on whether
> existing packages in Debian are affected. Your proposal does not
> indicate whether the GR would be effective immediately.
> 
> My suggestion is for you to ask the DPL to extend the discussion
> period by a week (for constitutional reasons) followed by an immediate
> withdrawal of the GR. Withdrawing the GR allows you to resubmit later
> and wait 2-3 weeks from that point.
> 
> Thank you,
> Jeremy Bícha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117071 — Re: discussion extension (was: Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Mo,

Am Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:24:32PM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> According to constitution A.1.6, would you mind helping us extend
> the discussion period by a week?
> https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

I hereby extend the discussion period by a week.

I admit that I consider this one of the most complex problems I've
encountered during my time in Debian, and I hope the additional week
will be sufficient. In any case, thanks to Mo for initiating the
discussion and to everyone who contributed constructively.

Kind regards
   Andreas.
 
> >From the feedbacks I've heard, there are a couple of problems we are
> facing currently.
> 
> * Myself being confident in proposal A is one thing. But the audience
>   of this GR needs more information in order to make a well-thought
>   vote, while I'm suffering from low bandwidth in recent weeks.
> 
> * People holding different opinions have really short time to prepare
>   a formal polished proposal.
> 
> Maybe those factors indicate this is not the best time to vote.
> I'm considering whether I should withdraw the proposal, collect more
> information to fill up the overlooked aspects, further polish the
> proposal A, and come back when it is ready. Doing so also allows
> enough time for proposal B,C,D... since people know that I'm really
> pushing this forward now.
> 
> ...
> > I don't believe we have enough information to do the GR now (or one
> > week from today, the longest we can delay). I am unclear on whether
> > existing packages in Debian are affected. Your proposal does not
> > indicate whether the GR would be effective immediately.
> > 
> > My suggestion is for you to ask the DPL to extend the discussion
> > period by a week (for constitutional reasons) followed by an immediate
> > withdrawal of the GR. Withdrawing the GR allows you to resubmit later
> > and wait 2-3 weeks from that point.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Jeremy Bícha
> 
> 

-- 
https://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117059 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Hi,

On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 11:15 -0400, Mo Zhou wrote:
> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks as I'm 
> completely not available for involving into discussions.

It is two weeks unless something specific happens, so discussion period
might already have ended by now...

Ansgar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117060 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Hi Mo (2025.05.05_15:15:01_+0000)
>"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.

Read section A.2 of the constitution: you can withdraw your ballot 
option, and the GR won't happen. Others may pick it up and carry it 
through to a GR, though.

This doesn't stop you from calling a GR later.

Stefano

-- 
Stefano Rivera
   http://tumbleweed.org.za/
   +1 415 683 3272

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117061 — Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Hi,

On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 16:13 +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Read section A.2 of the constitution: you can withdraw your ballot 
> option, and the GR won't happen. Others may pick it up and carry it 
> through to a GR, though.

There is that part though:

+---
| No new ballot options may be proposed, no ballot options may
| be amended, and no proposers or sponsors may withdraw if less than
| 24 hours remain in the discussion period, unless this action
| successfully extends the discussion period under §A.1.4 by at
| least 24 additional hours.
+---

One could add an additional ballot option or the project leader might
extend the discussion period (unless it is already over I guess).

Ansgar

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel

csiph-web