Thanks for raising this Huaxin. I do think this is very much worth discussing.
I also want to acknowledge that we recently updated the contribution guide here [1], so there is already some baseline guidance in place around AI-assisted contributions. My instinct is that we should be careful not to make this too much about AI itself, even though I agree that AI is what has made this issue much more pronounced. It is now much easier to generate PRs that look ready for review on the surface, even when the author has not really gone through the content carefully themselves. Because of that, I think it may be more useful to frame any additional guidance around the quality and readiness of the contribution, rather than around AI use by itself. That feels like a more durable way to set the standard, since it focuses on things we can actually assess consistently in review, rather than trying to determine how the content was produced. On that note, one practical place to start might be to have a more formal guideline around when a PR should be marked draft versus ready for review. I think a positive direction for the community would be to strengthen contributor judgment around what it means for a PR to actually be ready for reviewer attention, even if the change looks substantial on the surface. We already have a fairly simple mention of the draft PR process [2], and maybe that is a natural place to clarify our standard for what should be labeled ready for review. I also think that kind of guideline would be constructive for someone who is misreading the readiness of generated code. It gives them a clear way to adjust their behavior going forward, without making the first response a punishing one. If we start from an assumption of good intent, that seems like a better way to help contributors build stronger judgment over time. If the same pattern keeps repeating after that, then I think it makes sense to handle it as a contribution-process issue, regardless of whether generative tooling was involved. That may also be worth clarifying, and it aligns with your question about limiting contributions from people who repeatedly ignore these guidelines, although I hope clearer standards help avoid getting to that point. Cheers, Sung [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15213 [2] https://iceberg.apache.org/contribute/#pull-request-process On 2026/03/10 00:52:43 huaxin gao wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Some recent PRs look like they were made entirely by AI: finding issues, > writing code, opening PRs, and replying to review comments, with no human > review and no disclosure. > > Our guidelines already say contributors are expected to understand their > code, verify AI output before submitting, and disclose AI usage. The > problem is there's nothing about what happens when someone ignores them. > > Should we define consequences? For example: > > > - Closing PRs that were clearly not reviewed by a human before submitting > - Limiting contributions from people who repeatedly ignore these > guidelines > > It's OK to use AI to help write code, but submitting AI output without > looking at it and leaving it to maintainers to catch the problems is not > OK. > > What do you all think? > > Thanks, > > Huaxin >
