> I would welcome constructive feedback on it.
Agreed that it's too long.
- Separate Principles from Policy.
- The operational meat is right here:
> Reviewer time is even more limited than contributor time, so we
> expect you to have invested significantly more time in your
> contribution than it will take to review. As well as writing
> the payload itself (code, documentation, tests), we ask you to
> invest time in making your contribution easy to review. It is
> much easier to review an MR that has a clearly articulated goal
> has a clearly explained design, often expressed in an overview
> Note is illustrated with insightful examples has good test cases
> In short, we expect you to have invested significant time in
> your contribution before you ask others to invest their free
> time to review and improve it.
Lead with that.
- The other key operational policy is the identifiable human author.
If you want potential contributors to read the document, I suggest
leading with those two policy items, then boiling the rest down to two
bulleted lists: recommended and anti-recommended ways to use LLMs.
I warmly endorse the principles, but they may belong elsewhere.
Norman
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
