Hi EJ, Thanks for starting this discussion! I left some comments on the PR.
I think the bigger question is how to deal with contributions from GH accounts controlled by AI rather than humans. Cheers, Dmitri. On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 1:45 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
