>The only way it could be reasonable is if this is an intentional-parody setup
I do cover it in the CONTRIBUTING document, I'll include that section below. I'll add further color by saying that the idea came to me as, in your words, an intentional parody, in the shower a few days ago. But the more I thought about it the more I felt it was an important social experiment to run. The phrase "somebody has to be first" came to mind as well. >From the CONTRIBUTING.md: Why A few reasons, in no particular order: - This project already is what the policy describes. Every line of apt-cacher-ultra was written by an AI assistant working with a human director. Keeping the contribution model consistent with how the project was built feels reasonable. - Counterweight. A growing number of projects are banning AI contributions outright. Reasonable people can land in different places on that question, and we think it's healthy for the ecosystem to have experiments running in both directions. - It's a useful prompt. If this policy makes you stop and think "wait, why?" — about either direction — that's the point. The interesting questions about AI and open source are still wide open, and defaults of any kind deserve scrutiny. What This Isn't - It isn't a swipe at projects with the opposite policy. Their reasons (provenance, DCO, maintainer load, quality) are real, and we take them seriously. - It isn't a claim that AI-written code is better. It's a claim that, for this project, it's the consistent and interesting choice. - It isn't a license-laundering scheme. Contributions are still under the project's existing license, and contributors are still responsible for the patches they submit on behalf of their assistant. On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 1:23 PM The Wanderer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2026-05-19 at 14:54, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 06:40:31PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 03:17:34PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 08:51:34AM -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote: > >> > > https://github.com/linsomniac/apt-cacher-ultra > >> > > >> > Very interesting, thanks, I shall take a look. > >> > >> I've had 5 minutes worth of looking and I have to say the contribution > >> policy is giving me some concern. TL;DR: they ONLY accept AI-assisted > >> contributions. > >> > >> > https://github.com/linsomniac/apt-cacher-ultra/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md > > > > Huh? > > > > I actually tried to wget that "markdown" and, yikes. > > Try appending '?raw=true' to the URL. I was able to wget it in readable > form that way. > > > So, I'll pass, thanks. Thanks for the heads-up. > > The "AI-only contribution policy" is a fairly alarming red flag, > certainly. The only way it could be reasonable is if this is an > intentional-parody setup, and that doesn't look to be the case from what > I can see. > > -- > The Wanderer > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all > progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw > > >
