Debian began a general resolution vote on LLM usage in project contributions, with voting opening at 2026-08-15 00:00:00 UTC and ballots due by 2026-08-28 23:59:59 UTC. Debian Project Secretary Kurt Roeckx sent a corrected ballot dated Sat, 15 Aug 2026 02:14:52 +0200 to debian-devel-announce and debian-vote. The vote is being conducted under the Debian Constitution, and voters must send a signed ballot to gr_llm@vote.debian.org using numbers between 1 and 9.

The ballot contains 9 choices on how Debian should treat LLMs and other generative AI tools in direct project work. Choice 1 would add a Social Contract clause banning direct contributions written with LLMs or generative AI, including packaging, native Debian software such as lintian, documentation, translations and official web resources. Choice 9 is “None of the above.”

Choice 2 would allow AI-assisted contributions if 6 conditions are met: legal compatibility of tool terms, licensing and attribution checks, contributor accountability for technical merit, security and license compliance, disclosure of significant assistance such as a Git trailer “Generated-By:”, prior discussion for bulk or automated changes, and no transmission of sensitive or non-public project information. Choice 3 asks contributors to avoid LLMs as far as practical, says messages to humans such as bug reports and mailing lists must be drafted solely by humans, requires disclosure for any LLM use in Debian work, and treats violations as Code of Conduct issues.

Choice 4 would accept AI contributions for Debian-specific work while requiring DFSG compliance, submitter responsibility for understanding and signing off on work, marking AI-assisted work, and no cloud-based AI for sensitive or non-public data. Choice 5 says Debian neither endorses nor prohibits generative AI, keeps existing standards for quality, correctness, maintainability and legal compliance, encourages but does not require disclosure, bars disclosure of confidential or private information to third-party AI services, and requires prior discussion and consensus for automated actions such as mass bug filing. Choice 6 encourages contributors to avoid generative AI where practical and prefer human authorship, while keeping existing standards and making disclosure a courtesy rather than a requirement.

Choice 7, “Debian is created by humans,” would disallow the output of generative AI as direct contributions to Debian while avoiding restrictions on tools that contributors use for exploration, research, analysis or critique. Its scope includes Debian packaging, BTS submissions, Salsa, mailing lists, Debian project software, infrastructure, web resources, documentation, translation and official communication, but not indirect upstream contributions. Choice 8 argues that LLM resource use accelerates climate destruction, frames Debian’s stance as a position statement, says LLM use can be hard or impossible to detect, condemns LLM resource use rather than users, and encourages disclosure and human authorship where practical.

Debian began a general resolution vote on LLM usage in project contributions, with voting opening at 2026-08-15 00:00:00 UTC and ballots due by 2026-08-28 23:59:59 UTC. Debian Project Secretary Kurt Roeckx sent a corrected ballot dated Sat, 15 Aug 2026 02:14:52 +0200 to debian-devel-announce and debian-vote. The vote is being conducted under the Debian Constitution, and voters must send a signed ballot to gr_llm@vote.debian.org using numbers between 1 and 9.

The ballot contains 9 choices on how Debian should treat LLMs and other generative AI tools in direct project work. Choice 1 would add a Social Contract clause banning direct contributions written with LLMs or generative AI, including packaging, native Debian software such as lintian, documentation, translations and official web resources. Choice 9 is “None of the above.”

Choice 2 would allow AI-assisted contributions if 6 conditions are met: legal compatibility of tool terms, licensing and attribution checks, contributor accountability for technical merit, security and license compliance, disclosure of significant assistance such as a Git trailer “Generated-By:”, prior discussion for bulk or automated changes, and no transmission of sensitive or non-public project information. Choice 3 asks contributors to avoid LLMs as far as practical, says messages to humans such as bug reports and mailing lists must be drafted solely by humans, requires disclosure for any LLM use in Debian work, and treats violations as Code of Conduct issues.

Choice 4 would accept AI contributions for Debian-specific work while requiring DFSG compliance, submitter responsibility for understanding and signing off on work, marking AI-assisted work, and no cloud-based AI for sensitive or non-public data. Choice 5 says Debian neither endorses nor prohibits generative AI, keeps existing standards for quality, correctness, maintainability and legal compliance, encourages but does not require disclosure, bars disclosure of confidential or private information to third-party AI services, and requires prior discussion and consensus for automated actions such as mass bug filing. Choice 6 encourages contributors to avoid generative AI where practical and prefer human authorship, while keeping existing standards and making disclosure a courtesy rather than a requirement.

Choice 7, “Debian is created by humans,” would disallow the output of generative AI as direct contributions to Debian while avoiding restrictions on tools that contributors use for exploration, research, analysis or critique. Its scope includes Debian packaging, BTS submissions, Salsa, mailing lists, Debian project software, infrastructure, web resources, documentation, translation and official communication, but not indirect upstream contributions. Choice 8 argues that LLM resource use accelerates climate destruction, frames Debian’s stance as a position statement, says LLM use can be hard or impossible to detect, condemns LLM resource use rather than users, and encourages disclosure and human authorship where practical.