On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 7:37 AM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am opposed to this. There’s too much imprecision in the “rule” while > simultaneously being much too rigid, and it will be improperly enforced (we > already have lots of rule breaking around modifying public APIs, that > should have discuss threads and do not, for instance). This kind of > arbitrary rule that is unaligned with contributors will likely lead to a > bad and inconsistent documentation, which is worse than no documentation. > I agree. This is too strong a measure. We have a documentation problem but trying to poorly litigate ourselves into fixing it isn't the best way. > We could perhaps stipulate that for a feature to leave experimental status > the community must vote and that documentation should be a consideration. > But this will only capture big changes. > > We could perhaps try other ideas like moratoriums on contributions that > are not documentation, to encourage improvements there. > > We could perhaps try having LLMs generate documentation that new > contributors could take a first pass at editing for correctness, before a > committer takes a final pass. > I would support these ideas and others if we decide to try any of them out. I'm all for improving this situation. Kind Regards, Brandon
