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