You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@polaris.apache.org by EJ Wang <ej...@gmail.com> on 2026/03/03 18:44:14 UTC
[DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
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
Re: [DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi EJ,
Thanks for the update. I will take a look at the PR.
Regards,
JB
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 12:59 AM EJ Wang <ej...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi JB, Yufei,
>
> Thanks both, this is very helpful.
>
> I agree the best starting point is to align Polaris with the ASF guidance,
> which is what I've already referenced in my initial draft:
> https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3948/changes (thought I sent out
> for
> reference last week, but not actually, need to fix my mailbox)
>
> LMK what you think!
>
> -ej
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:58 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > 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 <ej...@gmail.com>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
Posted by EJ Wang <ej...@gmail.com>.
Hi JB, Yufei,
Thanks both, this is very helpful.
I agree the best starting point is to align Polaris with the ASF guidance,
which is what I've already referenced in my initial draft:
https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3948/changes (thought I sent out for
reference last week, but not actually, need to fix my mailbox)
LMK what you think!
-ej
On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:58 AM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> 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 <ej...@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
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 <ej...@gmail.com> 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
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
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 <ej...@gmail.com> 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
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
Posted by EJ Wang <ej...@gmail.com>.
I think it would help to split this into two layers:
- One layer is the human-facing contributor guideline: the submitting human
is accountable, must understand the change, and the project should align
with ASF guidance.
- The other layer is contributions coming from AI-controlled accounts. That
feels like a different discussion around identity, accountability,
provenance, licensing, and what kind of contribution harness the project
wants to allow.
My suggestion would be to keep the current guideline lightweight, and start
a separate discussion for agent-operated contribution harnesses. One
possible implementation direction could be an `AGENTS.md` style manifest or
similar harness metadata, so the expectations are explicit when
contributions are produced through agent-operated workflows. That seems
easier to reason about than folding everything into `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
-ej
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 12:03 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>
wrote:
> 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 <ej...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Guidelines for AI-Generated Contributions in Polaris
Posted by Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org>.
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 <ej...@gmail.com>
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
>