I like it in concept. To reiterate, it isn't the use of the generative tool, it's the dependence on it that is the issue. I think we can add checkboxes and required fields all we want, but people never read them. The best we do is add it so we can point to it later, I guess. Thanks for writing that up, Jarek.
- ferruzzi ________________________________ From: Zach Gottesman via dev <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 12:53 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Zach Gottesman Subject: RE: [EXT] [PROPOSAL] Gen-AI guidelines in contrib docs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque. +1 to mandatory PR description field, as someone who spent time reviewing one of the aforementioned PRs without realizing it was AI-generated On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 2:58 PM Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Jarek for starting the proposal. As I approved also in the > devlist my signal, I am +1 on it. > > As like in Spark (did not know about this, they did it in 2023!) I'm > also for adding similar to PR template. Then nobody could claim they > have not seen / read it. Not all read the contributions docs. > > On 1/6/26 20:44, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Question raised in a PR - adding here for better visibility: > > > > Apache Spark has a PR template item about the usage of AI added in > > apache/spark#42469 > > > > Shall we also add a note into > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > > ? > > > > Here is the content of PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE of Spark - we can likely > also > > make it optional or mandatory checkbox in the PR ? > > > > WDYT? > > > > There is a bit of friction if we make it a mandatory field to fill, but > > maybe it's worth it ? > > > > J. > > > > > > ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? > > <!-- > > If generative AI tooling has been used in the process of authoring this > > patch, please include the > > phrase: 'Generated-by: ' followed by the name of the tool and its > version. > > If no, write 'No'. > > Please refer to the [ASF Generative Tooling Guidance]( > > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html) for details. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 1:24 PM Aritra Basu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Overall I'm for this, was about to add some comments but unable to do > it , > >> getting some errors. Will add once I get home. Mostly in ways of adding > >> some more lines to hammer home the cost of these spammy prs and updating > >> some sentence structures. But fully onboard with the spirit of it. > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Aritra Basu > >> > >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2026, 3:42 pm Jarek Potiuk, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello here. > >>> > >>> We have recently - like almost everyone else - started to receive some > >>> Gen-AI generated PRs that are creating some distractions - recently we > >>> closed 25(!) PRS of a contributor that was clearly doing PRs without > >>> understanding what their AI proposed, without review or even a touch of > >>> understanding what they do: > >>> > >>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Apr%20author%3A%22Arunodoy18%22 > >>> > >>> Some of those PRs looked "plausible" but either tests were completely > not > >>> working or the changes themselves were inconsequential. > >>> > >>> We discussed it in private@ and I think it's a good idea to add clear > >>> guidelines on how to use Gen AI for contributions, point out bad > >> behaviours > >>> and make it very clear that similar usages of Gen AI will not be > >> accepted. > >>> We should be clear about expectations we have towards such PRs - while > at > >>> the same acknowledging that it's perfectly fine to use AI as long as > our > >>> expectations are met. > >>> > >>> I also added one thing that is important - it seems that people do such > >> PRs > >>> partially because they want to boost their reputation, but as the > example > >>> of the contributor that had 25 closed PRs with a maintainer saying "you > >> are > >>> doing it wrong, stop" - is ALL BUT boosting reputation - it's a clear > >> path > >>> to being a) ignored by everyone b) reported to Github as scammer and > >>> getting your account shutdown. > >>> > >>> I proposed a PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60158 and I > >> welcome > >>> any comments - this might be a bit sensitive thing, so it's worth to > have > >>> more people comment and make sure the bias of single person and > cultural > >>> differences will not make it seem too harsh or somewhat drive out the > >> valid > >>> contributions. > >>> > >>> I do not think we need some specific voting on it, but once we give it > a > >>> few days of discussions and give people a chance to look at it - i will > >>> merge it and send a LAZY CONSENSUS here - because I think we record it > >> as a > >>> community approach that we all consent with. > >>> > >>> Particularly *Arunodoy18* - if you are watching it and have something > to > >>> add in the defense of your PRs - maybe we misunderstood the behaviour > and > >>> intentions of yours and maybe you have some other perspective - this is > >> the > >>> right time for you to step up and explain. > >>> > >>> J. > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
