I this case it appears to have been „someone“ admitting to have used AI to draft the PRs. Not sure if he wanted to pimp his resume, or if „he“’s a bot or has malicious intent … seems like communication on the mailings was too much to ask for. At least he said he subscribed … so he should be getting this email too ;-)
If we’re doing him wrong, here would be the place to speak up, but I doubt that’s gonna happen. If it does, I appologize but would really like to learn more about the motivations. Also … perhaps we should use AI ourselves so spot things AIs could whip up PRs … the fewer of these that we have, the less AI pre we have to handle ;-)( Chris Von: Lukas <[email protected]> Datum: Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2025 um 15:08 An: [email protected] <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Do we want to make communication a requirement before merging PRs? Yes an additional interaction via mailing list, where the PR is explained helps us to at least make the probability higher for an actual person and not a bot generating code. Am 7. Oktober 2025 14:23:13 MESZ schrieb Christofer Dutz <[email protected]>: >Hi all, > >Afer we jus got another set of AI PRs, I think we should discuss how to >generally handle these types of PRs. > >They usually handle super trivial stuff where merging is sort of a no-brainer. >However, merging a PR gives access to some GitHub Runner resources. It also >lets „AI contributors“ appear more credible in other projects (if you don’t >actually look at the PRs that got merged). > >I personally would like us to live the Apache moto: "Community over Code“. > >What do you think? Should we make communicating on the mailing list before >having PRs merged mandatory? If the submitter declines or disappears, we >simply replicate the changes and close that door for automated PRs. > >What do you think? I would like to add this requirement. Email … slack … up to >them … I just want some form of interaction that helps us at least raise the >bar for AI bots. > >Chris >
