• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    The Debian vote was so stupid:

    Option A: Psychotic breakdown
    Option B: Ethical impracticality
    Option C: Political extremism
    Option D: Two contradictory things at once
    Option E: Something that doesn't prevent the other options but packaged with something nasty and unpalatable
    Option F: Sensible but ultimately vague and action-less common place neutrality.
    Option G: Nuclear option
    Option H: Do nothing
    

    It was such a brain dead exercise in futility. It was designed for the winner from the start.

    Nussbaun’s comment on the result is hilariously dull:

    On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web.

    The GR results give us raw numbers about our opinion, and a direction, but we have a lot of work ahead of us to act as a community and understand how we can continue to accommodate the very large minority that would have preferred to ban or discourage AI.

    Lucas

    ¹ obligatory disclosure: the script used is AI-generated

    Yeah, the option that doesn’t say anything won. Who knew?…wait yes, mathematicians, they knew. The most important part of a survey is choosing the options carefully.

    • ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      How was it “designed for the winner”? Proposals to a resolution vote are submitted and seconded, with no restrictions on who, how many or what proposals are added, you just have to be a voting member of the ML. You can look at the list of proposal sponsors and the seconds to see how that’s done.

      https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002