This is something I could support as well. 2 things:
Our docs tend to be neglected. While ideally our docs would be 100% human generated, they’re mostly just not generated at the moment. While not ideal, I think relaxing the rust LLM policy as it relates to docs would be a net positive for users, provided they’re human reviewed and edited. How would we handle the “Non-critical” part of the experimental section? The policy exempts rust-lang members from that… does this mean we’d exempt committers but not non-committers. What’s the Cassandra analog of the non-critical section? On Mon, Sep 28, 2026, at 12:10 PM, Francisco Guerrero wrote: > I've gone over the the Rust policy. I am in support of the Rust > version with the tweaks proposed by Caleb. > > Best, > - Francisco > > On 2026/09/28 18:45:03 Aleksey Yeshchenko via dev wrote: > > Some last minute amends to the suggested policy's TL;DR, with Caleb's > > approval: > > > > - It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, > > check, suggest, review. > > - LLMs work best when used as a tool to write better, not faster. > > > > "But not to create." bit is covered in detail by the full policy and is > > impossible to summarise well in two words. > > > > With other changes as outlined by Caleb in the quoted email, I would be > > happy to support this fine-tuned version of Rust's policy. > > > > -- > > AY > > > > > On 28 Sep 2026, at 19:27, Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > To clarify, I would remove the "Experimental" tag and make that section > > > apply to all contributors. (In other words, encourage attribution, > > > quality, and human decision-making for all of us.) > > > > > > The spirit of this is really a one line change to the Rust policy: > > > > > > > It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, > > > > check, suggest, review. But not to create. > > > > > > ...becomes... > > > > > > It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, > > > check, suggest, review. But not to decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 12:54 PM Caleb Rackliffe > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> I finally read the Rust and Lucene policy docs in more detail... > > >> > > >> https://flagged.apple.com:443/proxy?t2=Dx1j3o8bN8&o=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3JnZS5ydXN0LWxhbmcub3JnL3BvbGljaWVzL2xsbS11c2FnZS5odG1s&emid=10aadc4f-b52a-4662-9281-ce00061a230c&c=11 > > >> > > >> <https://flagged.apple.com/proxy?t2=Dx1j3o8bN8&o=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3JnZS5ydXN0LWxhbmcub3JnL3BvbGljaWVzL2xsbS11c2FnZS5odG1s&emid=10aadc4f-b52a-4662-9281-ce00061a230c&c=11> > > >> https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md > > >> > > >> I think I agree with a lot of what's written in both, and they overlap > > >> quite a lot, especially around communication (docs, issue comments, > > >> etc.) that should be primarily human-to-human. Everything useful in the > > >> Lucene policy is already included in the Rust policy though. If we could > > >> take the Rust policy, generalize away the Rust-specific things, simplify > > >> it, and remove the "Experimental" tag (and probably the "non-critical" > > >> qualifier) on the "LLM-created code changes intended of review" section, > > >> I think that's something a large majority of us would be able to live > > >> with. > > >> > > >> If we can get this right, it's simply clarifying the set of things > > >> contributors (including existing committers) can do to have the best > > >> chance at getting engagement from reviewers. > > >> > > >> I don't know how much appetite there is out there for a formal draft of > > >> this, and we already have 3-4 proposals, but I could attempt it if that > > >> would be useful... > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 10:50 AM Štefan Miklošovič > > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> A clarification from my side, I asked "what is wrong with this" in my > > >>> latest email: > > >>> > > >>> "For these reasons, it should be expected that the person producing > > >>> the patch has already demonstrated their expertise and commitment by > > >>> producing and maintaining similar patches without the use of AI" > > >>> > > >>> It is "almost fine", the part of "similar patches without the use of > > >>> AI" should not be there. It should stop before that. > > >>> > > >>> Otherwise this is going to exclude people who have a decade of > > >>> experience with Cassandra and contributed countless patches of various > > >>> size and complexity while according to that exact wording, they would > > >>> not be eligible to contribute an AI patch. That is silly. I think this > > >>> is wrong. It does not matter how it was produced. What is important is > > >>> established trust and if a patch is correct. What does even the size > > >>> of a patch have in common with that? Expertise and commitment! Not > > >>> "the series of patches this committer ever produced was not complex > > >>> enough so we can't take that code in". > > >>> > > >>> Also, who is exactly going to measure that anyway? What are the > > >>> _objective_ criteria who qualifies? Somebody might come and say "while > > >>> based on my criteria, (because I do not like this person), I do not > > >>> think that the patches of this person qualify, because ...". We need > > >>> hard data on whether it can be merged or not, performance improvement, > > >>> stability ... > > >>> > > >>> I think this particular wording would need to be refined further. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 4:34 PM Štefan Miklošovič > > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > Right ... for that reason I don't think we should restrict anybody to > > >>> > create a PR or anything like that, putting some artificial constraints > > >>> > people will eventually bypass anyway. We don't have that under > > >>> > control. What we have under control is the review part of that. A > > >>> > patch not merged will not be released. The review itself is the > > >>> > "gate". > > >>> > > > >>> > If a PR, even done by AI, is up to standards, has everything it should > > >>> > have and it is technically correct, then I can not reject to merge > > >>> > that only on the basis it was AI-generated. A patch like a patch. The > > >>> > code speaks. The ultimate gate is if a patch is correct or not, not > > >>> > how it was produced. > > >>> > > > >>> > Do I gravitate with my trust more towards established members of the > > >>> > community? Definitely. The trust is earned over the years. Implicitly, > > >>> > I am trusting a newcomer less. Sorry but not sorry. If somebody calls > > >>> > this "gating", I don't think they see the nuances enough. Yeah, call > > >>> > it a gate if you want ... > > >>> > > > >>> > That is why I agree with Benedict here, he said: > > >>> > > > >>> > "For these reasons, it should be expected that the person producing > > >>> > the patch has already demonstrated their expertise and commitment by > > >>> > producing and maintaining similar patches without the use of AI". > > >>> > > > >>> > What is wrong about this? > > >>> > > > >>> > Look at this contributor (1). This is an excellent example. 10 patches > > >>> > in fast cadence three weeks ago. We never heard about this person > > >>> > before nor after the patches were created. What about hitting a ML > > >>> > saying "hey, guys, I have a set of patches which scratch my itches, > > >>> > can you take a look, please?". I don't know ... just be a bit ... > > >>> > human about all of this? The maintainers are people too. I am not > > >>> > obliged to take in and cooperate with whoever comes by, dumps their > > >>> > stuff and then they ... wait. Well, so wait. See where you got three > > >>> > weeks after? Nowhere. > > >>> > > > >>> > Caleb put it nicely, we are "only" humans. > > >>> > > > >>> > (1) > > >>> > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pulls?q=is%3Apr+state%3Aopen+author%3Acheeeee > > >>> > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 2:51 PM Shailaja Koppu via dev > > >>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Hi Stefan, > > >>> > > > > >>> > > From personal side, I completely agree with you. I am giving > > >>> > > potential options only to address concerns like - new contributors > > >>> > > overwhelming the community with AI generated PRs just to show as > > >>> > > add-on in their profile and vanish after that, or purely AI opened > > >>> > > PRs without developer review or understanding. But the later can > > >>> > > happen with anyone including committers due to workload/deadlines > > >>> > > or misled by AI etc. Also, someone can copy a AI generated patch > > >>> > > line by line skipping comments, which looks like a handwritten code. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > >>> > > Shailaja > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Sep 28, 2026, at 12:23 PM, Štefan Miklošovič > > >>> > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > >> - Only Cassandra committers may submit AI-assisted PRs. This > > >>> > > >> would mean new contributors first write and understand code > > >>> > > >> without AI before becoming committers; or > > >>> > > >> - Contributors may submit AI-assisted changes in a > > >>> > > >> component/subcomponent only after they have submitted at least > > >>> > > >> one non-AI PR in that component/subcomponent. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I am not sure if I am missing something but can you all explain in > > >>> > > > simple terms how is this actually enforceable in practice? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > "Only Cassandra committers may submit AI-assisted PRs" - there is > > >>> > > > no > > >>> > > > restriction who can create a PR and how. It is not like we see > > >>> > > > that a > > >>> > > > PR is created with heavy AI usage, then we check if a contributor > > >>> > > > is a > > >>> > > > committer and when they are not we comment on that PR saying - > > >>> > > > "hold > > >>> > > > your horses mate, we checked the list and you are not a committer, > > >>> > > > sorry, we have to close this". > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > If a PR is crafted "carefuly" then it might look like a completely > > >>> > > > legitimate piece of work while it is still 100% prompted and the > > >>> > > > author does not have a clue what they did. I mean ... how do you > > >>> > > > make > > >>> > > > the difference between what is "real" and what is AI-driven 100%? > > >>> > > > I > > >>> > > > think that even if we "guessed" which one is which, the > > >>> > > > possibility to > > >>> > > > see this is being progressively erased as this tech is evolving > > >>> > > > and we > > >>> > > > will eventually not have a clue. > > >>> > > > > > > >
