I would agree with this. The point is not the means by which the code / documentation / review / etc.was developed; it is the question of responsibility.

And you can't go back and ask Claude or Copilot about its involvement in an MR or review (probably that session's been wiped), just as you can't ask someone local to the author- or reviewer-of-record who had given them tips and hadn't mentioned because it had been considered a minor or indirect contribution.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 11:59 AM Jaro Reinders via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:

On 7/21/26 16:24, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org' wrote:
> If anyone wants to offer a better term than "authorship" to express this
> aspiration, by all means do suggest it. (Terminology is always hard.)

I would suggest "ownership" (as in code owner), which already has the meaning
of a person responsible for a piece of code (e.g.,
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10664-024-10538-5).

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org