Hi EJ, Thanks a lot for bringing this up, and working on it. Given the increasing number of AI or AI assisted contributions, it makes sense for us to put some guardrails in place. Also agreed with JB that we should base our guideline on the ASF one.
Yufei On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 12:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi EJ, > > That is a great idea. > > For your information, there is already ongoing work at the foundation > level, and some material has been published here: > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html > > I believe we should base our guidelines on this document and reference it > directly, as this page will continue to evolve and applies to all Apache > projects. > > Regards, > JB > > Le mar. 3 mars 2026 à 19:45, EJ Wang <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > > Hi Polaris community, > > > > I would like to start a discussion around how Polaris should approach > > AI-generated or AI-assisted contributions. > > > > Recently, Apache Iceberg merged a change that explicitly documents > > expectations around AI-assisted contributions: > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15213/changes > > > > As AI tools become more widely used in software development, contributors > > may rely on them in different ways - from drafting small code snippets to > > helping structure larger changes. Rather than focusing on how these tools > > are categorized, it may be more important to clarify contributor > > responsibility. > > > > If Polaris were to define guidance in this area, I believe the core > > principles should emphasize accountability: > > > > 1. > > > > The human contributor submitting a PR remains fully responsible for > the > > change, including correctness, design soundness, licensing compliance, > > and > > long-term maintainability. > > 2. > > > > The PR author should understand the core ideas behind the > implementation > > end-to-end, and be able to justify the design and code during review. > > 3. > > > > The contributor must be able to explain trade-offs, constraints, and > > architectural decisions reflected in the change. > > 4. > > > > Transparency around AI usage may be considered, but responsibility > > should not shift away from the human author. > > > > In other words, regardless of how a change is produced, the > accountability > > and authorship reside with the individual submitting it. AI systems > should > > not be treated as autonomous contributors. > > > > Questions for discussion: > > > > - > > > > Should Polaris explicitly define guidance around AI-generated > > contributions? > > - > > > > Do we want to require or encourage disclosure? > > - > > > > Are there ASF-level positions we should align with? > > - > > > > Should any such policy live in CONTRIBUTING.md? > > > > Given Polaris is building foundational infrastructure, setting > expectations > > early may help maintain high review standards while adapting to evolving > > development workflows. > > > > Looking forward to thoughts from the community. > > > > Best, > > > > -ej > > >
