@neil FWIW I was a member of the project a long time ago, not anymore.
I honestly do not know how I would have voted in that resolution.
In proposal A the copyright and ethics points should be enough to accept it (the quality and community points are debatable IMO), but notice the resolution refers only to Debian's own software, not upstream.
IOW, the weakness of the proposal lies not in the motivation and intent, but on its scope.
The proposal further weakens itself by acknowledging that enforcement would be challenging and that it would rely on good faith.
Proposal B takes the "pragmatic" approach: "what do you want me to do? The well is poisoned." It dwells into the copyright question with a relatively weak stance.
Proposal C is taking the stronger position of rejecting the whole thing but it deals a blow to itself by appending "as far as practical". Its strongest point is "any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed" but notice that rejecting contributions based on this is up for interpretation because it calls for "swift and proportionate disciplinary action".
Proposal D is borderline ridiculous and I wonder what the intent was there: "All code and work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool must comply with the DFSG." That's basically saying anything and everything is banned by asking for something where there's no widely accepted opinion right now.
Proposal E takes the "a tool is a tool is a tool" path.
Proposal F takes the "damage is done" path, which from what I've seen is a stance a lot of people in the OSS world are taking.
Proposal G… I don't really understand the point. It's "we don't allow its use but if you do use it that's OK as long as…" which reads like a pointless variation of other proposals.
Proposal H takes the "it's bad for the environment" path and immediately weakens itself by "encouraging" people to avoid using it.
The interesting bit is not that proposal E dominated over the others, but that B, D, E and F did get the most traction.
