Hi Polaris community, I would like to start a discussion around how Polaris should approach AI-generated or AI-assisted contributions.
Recently, Apache Iceberg merged a change that explicitly documents expectations around AI-assisted contributions: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15213/changes As AI tools become more widely used in software development, contributors may rely on them in different ways - from drafting small code snippets to helping structure larger changes. Rather than focusing on how these tools are categorized, it may be more important to clarify contributor responsibility. If Polaris were to define guidance in this area, I believe the core principles should emphasize accountability: 1. The human contributor submitting a PR remains fully responsible for the change, including correctness, design soundness, licensing compliance, and long-term maintainability. 2. The PR author should understand the core ideas behind the implementation end-to-end, and be able to justify the design and code during review. 3. The contributor must be able to explain trade-offs, constraints, and architectural decisions reflected in the change. 4. Transparency around AI usage may be considered, but responsibility should not shift away from the human author. In other words, regardless of how a change is produced, the accountability and authorship reside with the individual submitting it. AI systems should not be treated as autonomous contributors. Questions for discussion: - Should Polaris explicitly define guidance around AI-generated contributions? - Do we want to require or encourage disclosure? - Are there ASF-level positions we should align with? - Should any such policy live in CONTRIBUTING.md? Given Polaris is building foundational infrastructure, setting expectations early may help maintain high review standards while adapting to evolving development workflows. Looking forward to thoughts from the community. Best, -ej
