Julian,
> If we treat LLM assisted contributions differently from non-LLM assisted contributions, then this is a somewhat implicit signal of distrust: you used an LLM, therefore we will penalize you with stricter reviews, require additional proof, etc.
[...]
> collaboration in large projects is very often trust based
[...]
> We can't force this disclosure anyway, so we simply assume that patch authors are truthful.
You see the discrepancy in this? This leads to the following bizarre situation (Conduct => Review):
Truthfully discloses LLM generation => Additional scrutiny or stricter review, because we distrust you
Does not disclose it => Receives ordinary review unless discovered
Did not use an LLM => Receives ordinary review, may still be accused of LLM use.
This creates an incentive structure in which honest contributors that comply with the honor system are automatically placed in the less-trusted category.
You also hold the following four views concurrently:
1. Responsible LLM users should not be stigmatized.
2. How the code was produced is private and should not matter.
3. LLM generation should be disclosed because it justifies stricter review.
4. Such disclosure is not a weakness and does not make contributors second-class.
However two conflicts with three, and three makes four difficult to sustain. And while the first is aspirational, the proposed review practices is the mechanism by which the stigma would arise.
This is then justified by operational constraints (I think given infinite resources, this would be an ok position).
Best,
Moritz