Hey folks,

I apologize that my only other contribution to this discussion was a little emotional. Harendra wrote something that really resonated with me (positively)!

Moritz and Julian's shared statement is one I fully support.

I also support the draft policy. I agree that such a policy is needed. I note (with satisfaction) that you could just as easily call it a general "Contribution Policy", but that's neither here nor there. The main takeaway is that GHC is a project designed for human eyeballs. I think we have 100% agreement on that particular value?

The one thing I reacted to previously was P3: declaring use of LLMs. Now, I realize it's literally the least I could do. Of course I will do it.


On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 05:46, Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:
Hi Teo,
 
Contributors should only put forth contributions that they could have created without the support of AI tooling.
I agree with that statement. Although I'd probably add reasonably to it. I do think it suffers from the same "very difficult to tell":
 
Is the intention that if a user does one of the things in "inappropriate use" that they're contribution would be rejected? These seem like extremely controversial suggestions to me, and also things that are very difficult to tell.

Out of curiosity, which of the inappropriate use cases listed do you find extremely controversial?  I'm still operating under the premise that there is neither a right to have one's contribution reviewed, nor a right to have one's contribution included/merged. It's ultimately up to the core maintainers/folks with commit bits to decide if they deem a contribution inclusion worthy or not. Maybe this assumption is fundamentally flawed and just wrong?

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