I think we should adopt the best industry framework to integrate with the Development agent.
Thanks, Prashant Rahulkar. On Tue, 1 Sept 2026 at 17:10, Ádám Sághy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > My two cents: > > > Since AI is already being used, having rules and a playbook would be > beneficial to avoid any misunderstandings. > > > Considering its widespread adoption across various fields such as > development, debugging, testing, brainstorming, and PR reviewing, we don’t > need to debate whether the Apache or Fineract community wants it. It’s > already in use, and contributors will continue to use it (*I don’t > believe there’s a way to prevent it, nor should it be!*). Let’s focus on > determining appropriate boundaries and its intended use. > > > Disclaimer: I am not up to date with latest “recommendations” of Apache on > this topic. > > > Regards, > > Adam Saghy > > > > On Sep 1, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Sujan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Aman, > > +1 to having some clear boundaries around AI-assisted development. > > I think there are valid positives and negatives here. AI can definitely > help with productivity, debugging, and refactoring, but contributors should > still understand and take ownership of the changes they submit. If PRs > become mostly AI-generated, it also makes them much harder to review > effectively. > > I think a lightweight, project-specific policy would be a good middle > ground rather than completely discouraging AI or allowing unrestricted use. > > On Tue, 1 Sept, 2026, 11:42 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Aman, >> >> Thank you for starting this important topic. >> >> *+1 to starting a dedicated discussion and adopting a lightweight, >> project-specific AI policy.* >> >> I support the direction because AI-assisted development is already >> happening (it is very noticeable this year before the GSOC and the >> increasing numbers of PRs submitted and merged) and clear, practical >> guidelines (for developers and reviewers) will help us benefit from it >> without creating problems for maintainers or the project’s legal posture. >> An optional disclosure approach plus a short *AI_POLICY.md* inspired by >> Apache Fory’s is a sensible starting point. It can be adapted for Apache >> Fineract rather than copying it wholesale. >> >> To address the concerns raised earlier (including those from Aleks) I >> think is good to stay aligned with the ASF Generative Tooling Guidance >> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html >> >> Best regards >> >> Victor Romero >> >> >> >> El lun, 31 ago 2026 a las 23:44, Aman Mittal (< >> [email protected]>) escribió: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I want to revive the discussion based on >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/xxoqt3jn8trhwo1lnxjy46r1dkolfg1h >>> >>> and Concerns raised by Aleks in >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq25gyjsx0wry4jf58odds9z92pfx6bj >>> >>> Regarding the usage and guidelines of AI, I think we need to discuss >>> AI-assisted development a bit more, so I'm creating this dedicated thread >>> on the dev list. >>> >>> As per my understanding, using AI is fine if contributors understand >>> their work and can explain their reasoning for each line. >>> >>> So, I'm thinking we can start with an optional disclosure policy on >>> that. >>> I think we can add a AI_POLICY.md for each repo. One policy we can take >>> inspiration from is >>> https://github.com/apache/fory/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md >>> While we do not need to copy it entirely, we can take inspiration from >>> it and modify it for FINERACT and all the repos based on community feedback. >>> >>> I suggest that it should include Commonly used AI setups that >>> contributors did not declare in an AI usage disclosure. >>> >>> What does the community think about this? >>> >>> Regards >>> Aman >>> >>> >
