in the old world, was taking a snippet from elsewhere a copyright infringement? (really a question, dont know).
On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 12:56 PM Aleksandar Vidakovic < [email protected]> wrote: > ... this sounds like there is a standard... there is not. This is already > hard to achieve with classic development... there are a ton of different > approaches and (actual) standards (development on embedded components in > the automotive industry and similar)... to really make an informed decision > here we would need to make sure that two people that run the same tool > setup create the same results... I'd say: impossible, but happy to change > my mind if you point to an example where this ever happened with AI tools. > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 6:17 PM Prashant Rahulkar < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>
