Hello here.

We have recently - like almost everyone else - started to receive some
Gen-AI generated PRs that are creating some distractions - recently we
closed 25(!) PRS of a contributor that was clearly doing PRs without
understanding what their AI proposed, without review or even a touch of
understanding what they do:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Apr%20author%3A%22Arunodoy18%22


Some of those PRs looked "plausible" but either tests were completely not
working or the changes themselves were inconsequential.

We discussed it in private@ and I think it's a good idea to add clear
guidelines on how to use Gen AI for contributions, point out bad behaviours
and make it very clear that similar usages of Gen AI will not be accepted.
We should be clear about expectations we have towards such PRs - while at
the same acknowledging that it's perfectly fine to use AI as long as our
expectations are met.

I also added one thing that is important - it seems that people do such PRs
partially because they want to boost their reputation, but as the example
of the contributor that had 25 closed PRs with a maintainer saying "you are
doing it wrong, stop" - is ALL BUT boosting reputation - it's a clear path
to being a) ignored by everyone b) reported to Github as scammer and
getting your account shutdown.

I proposed a PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60158 and I welcome
any comments - this might be a bit sensitive thing, so it's worth to have
more people comment and make sure the bias of single person and cultural
differences will not make it seem too harsh or somewhat drive out the valid
contributions.

I do not think we need some specific voting on it, but once we give it a
few days of discussions and give people a chance to look at it - i will
merge it and send a LAZY CONSENSUS here - because I think we record it as a
community approach that we all consent with.

Particularly *Arunodoy18* - if you are watching it and have something to
add in the defense of your PRs - maybe we misunderstood the behaviour and
intentions of yours and maybe you have some other perspective - this is the
right time for you to step up and explain.

J.

Reply via email to