> That supports “decisive win” comfortably; whether it qualifies as a “landslide” depends on where the margin threshold is set.

I think the landslide is "pro" vs. "against". The two most "against" options got the lowest rank. Top 4 are all "pro" (with different caveats for each).

  Rank Option 
  θ
  i
  1 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI 1.794
  2 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions 1.430
  3 6: A cautious approach to generative AI 1.424
  4 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work 1.252
  5 8: Avoid LLM use: climate impact 1.007
  6 7: Debian is created by humans 0.881
  7 9: None of the above 0.762
  8 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical 0.683
  9 1: Ban LLM contributions via Social Contract 0.474

The graph at https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_llm/ is really useful when understanding the results, too.

Debian is remarkable for being such a huge project which has successfully held itself together for so long. GRs like this are an essential part of that, allowing controversies to be settled in a way that manages to be both fair and transparent.

Good outcome, mostly.

Option E beat literally every other option, so it is an unambiguous Condorcet winner.

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

The tally.txt file is still unavailable.

Bradley–Davidson analysis: https://gist.github.com/tulior/74479b28ddd1e191e5b2d89b8b68c...

The Bradley-Davidson model gives Option 5 a 99.9993% posterior probability of ranking first. Options 2 and 6 are effectively tied for second.

Option 5 also beat every alternative head-to-head. Its closest matchup was against Option 2, at 57.8% to 42.2%, so the result was decisive overall even though the closest pairwise contest was not a blowout.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[dead]