Hi Kristian,
yes, in the end it needs a vote. However, we usually vote on a concrete proposal, e.g. "We all agree – by lazy consensus – that the direction in this draft is fine", with the usual ASF voting semantics. The current mail is phrased as a discussion (it has a DISCUSSION subject combined with a VOTE which is unusual) and raises new questions rather than stating a concrete proposal, so there is nothing anyone can actually +1/-1. Whatever we end up with, it needs to adhere to the standards the ASF is currently working on via RAI (https://rai.apache.org/). It's fine that other foundations are dropping requirements, but we are still a TLP of the ASF, so ASF guidance applies to us. RAI, the board and legal are still working on definitions. As long as there are no resolutions or concrete guidance, I'd stick with what is documented on the pages I already linked in the draft PR. So my suggestion: rephrase it and start a new thread asking for a (lazy consensus) vote on a concrete proposal, something like: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Adopt AGENTS.md and AI-generated content policy (PR #1470) This is a call for lazy consensus to adopt the AGENTS.md file and our policy for working with AI-generated content as proposed in https://github.com/apache/opennlp/pull/1470. The policy follows the current ASF guidance (RAI / legal) linked in the PR and will be revisited once the ASF publishes further guidance. This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. If there are no objections, it is accepted. Please reply with -1 and your reasoning if you object. Further discussion of the content can stay in the existing [DISCUSS] thread or the PR. Others might jump it regarding lazy consensus but that’s my 2 cents. Gruß Richard > Am 16.10.2026 um 21:24 schrieb Kristian Rickert <[email protected]>: > > I thought we need to vote on if we accept the agents file (per the review) > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2026, 2:36 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The header says this is a vote, but there is nothing to vote on ;-) >> I assume it is a discussion? >> >>> Am 16.10.2026 um 15:56 schrieb Kristian Rickert <[email protected]>: >>> >>> This email requests a vote on the AGENTS.md PR here: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/opennlp/pull/1470 >>> >>> This is the initial draft. It is a file for LLMs that all the frontier >>> apps read. It does not promise that LLMs will adhere to the AGENTS.md, >> but >>> they "usually" do. >>> >>> Per Martin's advice, I suggest extending this to everyone: avoid >>> overthinking or over-engineering. The Linux kernel is dropping the rule >> to >>> include "assisted by" for a multitude of reasons. Also, keep in mind >>> that it's concise because we want to avoid sending too many tokens. >>> >>> Below is for reference in case you're not familiar with AGENTS.md; we >>> already have a discussion thread, but feel free to discuss here or in the >>> PR itself. I'll summarize everything on this thread as we go along. >>> Official Spec >>> >>> https://agents.md/ >>> Claude's take >>> >>> If CLAUDE.md doesn't exist, it will treat AGENTS.md the same way: >>> >>> https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory >>> OpenAI's take >>> >>> https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/agent-configuration/agents-md >>> Lucene's take >>> >>> We did take inspiration from lucene's AI Policy but theirs is for humans, >>> and AGENTS.md is for machine: >>> apache/lucene@c94ed04 >>> < >> https://github.com/apache/lucene/commit/c94ed045b8a107aef4c2c07eafad42e7b82dbda6 >>> >>> >>> >>> *Linux Foundation's recent take* >>> >>> https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Dropping-Assisted-By-Req >>> >>> >>> Before commenting, I ask that we read some of the above guidelines to >>> understand what the file should and should not contain. >>> >>> Keep in mind, I suspect this will be a moving target - so having >> something >>> is better than nothing. >>> >>> Again - this file is for machines to read. Not humans. So that's why >> it's >>> slightly chunked, follows guidelines, and includes nearly everything we >>> discussed on the discussion thread. >>> >>> Kristian >> >>
