AI policy suggestions from Ulises#1
Merged
justaugustus merged 7 commits intoApr 28, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…tability gaps
The current rule requires disclosure for any AI use at any point, with
no minimum threshold. This treats AI tool choice as a reviewer-facing
signal, but tool choice is heterogeneous and does not change what
reviewers are evaluating. Under a strict read it also forces disclosure
for comprehension, translation, and grammar polish, which the policy's
own Recommendations section already lists as reasonable uses.
Reframe the disclosure section so AI tool use is treated as part of a
contributor's workflow (comparable to editor, linter, or language
server choice) and not disclosed by default. The contributor remains
fully responsible under the existing Contributor Responsibility
section, with DCO as the formal accountability attestation.
Require disclosure only in the two cases where the standard
accountability assumption breaks down:
1. AI-autonomous contributions (already defined in the policy).
2. AI-produced content the contributor has not meaningfully
reviewed and cannot fully explain.
Update the Rationale to carry the shift, replace the PR template
tool-use declaration with a review attestation, and detach the
"transform or adapt existing code" guidance from "the AI disclosure"
so it stands on its own as a source-attribution concern.
The current Requirements list bans AI-generated commit messages outright while permitting AI-drafted-then-human-reviewed output everywhere else. Either the human-reviews-and-owns standard applies throughout, or it does not. Apply it consistently here. Substantive requirement (commit messages must explain what and why) is preserved.
Carve-outs should be bounded. "Existing" floats forward as new bots get approved, so the exception never closes.
Blanket non-acceptance forbids good-faith fixes (typos, broken links, outdated commands). Maintainer review already provides the consistency guard the rule is reaching for.
"Stricter" needs a named axis, otherwise rules that tighten one dimension while loosening another get labeled stricter case by case with no principled criterion.
"Not accepted by default" implies an override path, but the policy only gestures at AGENTS.md without naming what makes a permission valid. Replace the gesture with operational requirements: scoped actions, named maintainer owner, identifiable agent, revocability.
DCO has 20 years of precedent and tested practice. The AI assurance analog has neither. Treat the comparison as a working analogy rather than a settled equivalence so contributors do not assume protections the AI side has not accumulated.
Owner
Author
|
These are really great additions, @UlisesGascon! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ulises' review of ossf#605.
cc: @UlisesGascon