> On Feb 2, 2026, at 2:02 AM, Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Adopting GitHub Issues imposes a new burden. Committers and PMC members will > face increased overhead in moderating AI spam. Unlike the current ASF JIRA > system, which now requires PMC approval for account creation (a > human-in-the-loop defense), GitHub accounts are easier to create and abuse. > Banning GitHub accounts is a tedious and unpleasant task for maintainers.
Banning accounts should not be that tedious. It’s just a couple of clicks, no? And accounts that are creating AI slop are likely doing it on other projects, meaning that GitHub will already be getting signals about an account’s quality before any Spark admin takes action. Severe offenders are likely to be banned globally by GitHub. Being on GitHub also means that we will have access to more tools that are integrated with the GitHub ecosystem to help manage problems like these, should we need them. > 3. Accessibility and Vendor Lock-in. > > We should not assume all users want or have GitHub accounts. Issue reporting > is distinct from code contribution. The current ecosystem allows anyone with > an email to participate via ASF infrastructure. Mandating GitHub Issues > forces users onto a third-party commercial platform, effectively raising the > barrier to entry for bug reporting. This argument doesn’t make sense to me. Earlier you were warning that lowering the barrier to entry will lead to more moderation overhead, but here you are arguing the opposite, that GitHub raises the barrier to entry. GitHub is so widely used in our industry that it’s reasonable to assume that it offers the lowest barrier to entry of any code collaboration platform. Reporting issues is a basic part of that. I think it would be difficult to find anyone, especially a new contributor, who feels that ASF Jira is more accessible than GitHub. Nick --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected]
