Thank you for your work on this, Simon. This draft to me looks like an agreeable compromise. However, I'll call out one bullet point which may require further discussion: under "P4: Declare use of LLMs," you ask that "if you used an LLM in a substantive way to generate your code or documentation, that should be acknowledged explicitly." Bullet point #2 says "How substantive is "substantive"? 90%? 50%? 10%? There is no hard and fast rule, but you will probably know."
It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a 90% or even 50% AI-generated contribution doesn't merit a declaration of AI usage. I'd suggest at _minimum_ dividing this number by 10, i.e.: "How substantive is "substantive"? 9%? 5%? 1%?," but really even 9% or 5% AI generation does not really qualify for the de minimis concerns of a person asking whether using Copilot to generate a for-loop counts as AI usage. Setting 10% as the lower bound for "substantial" is also certainly not what I'd want as a reviewer. My preference for these numbers would be more along the lines of "How substantive is "substantive"? 2%? 1%? 0.1%?" If I were a new contributor using LLMs and saw that a 90% contribution might be viewed as not worth acknowledging, I might be much less likely to add an acknowledgement on my own contributions, and it might seem unreasonable to me if a reviewer later takes issue with my not having acknowledged a large LLM contribution. Thanks, Tom > On 07/16/2026 12:53 AM CEST Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks to everyone for their input. I have been editing the draft in direct > response, as you'll have seen. > > Moritz would like to make it non-LLM-specific, and helpfully offered some > concrete wording. But I think we really do need something that tackles LLMs > head on. (I tried to say "we value the contribution, regardless of how it was > produced", although I know that is not really satisfying to you.) > > Moritz thanks for the "no right to review" draft. I adapted it to give it a > more positive spin -- see under "Human conversation". > > Some would like a briefer policy, and I see merit in brevity. But there is a > lot of nuance here, as we can see in the debate, and my (fairly strong) > preference is to value clarity, precision, and explicitness over length. > > I'm grateful that a few people with strong opinions have generously said (I > am paraphrasing) "It's not what I really want, but it's a reasonable basis to > move forward". That's what I meant about disagreeing agreeably. We all truly > want to work together, even though our views differ. > > We may well want to iterate the draft in the light of experience. > > I think we may have reached the point of diminishing returns, where we can > freeze the wording for now. Would you like to take a last look at the current > state, and say if there are any drafting changes you'd like to make? > > Thanks! > > Simon > > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 at 18:18, Wolfgang Jeltsch via ghc-devs > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am Mi 15.07.2026 16:20 schrieb Julian Ospald: > > > Given that I have way more strong opinions on this and can still get > > > behind this policy, I would suggest that it’s a good deal for > > > everyone. > > > > Given that I have way more strong opinions on this, I cannot get behind > > this policy. That said, if the goal is to somehow move forward with more > > or less everybody still on board, then we likely don’t have any > > considerably different option than using this policy that Simon > > proposes. Maybe it would be a good next step to just adopt it for now > > and check in a year how things have been going. > > > > All the best, > > Wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
