I have re-ordered a bit, and separated out the principles, an itemised the four things that could reasonably count as "policies". I'm genuniely unsure about length. Conveying a nuanced message accurately requires words. I hope that the extra structure helps. Simon On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 14:59, Norman Ramsey <nr@cs.tufts.edu> wrote:
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