I have re-ordered a bit, and separated out the principles, an itemised the four things that could reasonably count as "policies".
I'm genuniely unsure about length. Conveying a nuanced message accurately requires words. I hope that the extra structure helps. Simon On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 14:59, Norman Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would welcome constructive feedback on it. > > Agreed that it's too long. > > - Separate Principles from Policy. > > - The operational meat is right here: > > > Reviewer time is even more limited than contributor time, so we > > expect you to have invested significantly more time in your > > contribution than it will take to review. As well as writing > > the payload itself (code, documentation, tests), we ask you to > > invest time in making your contribution easy to review. It is > > much easier to review an MR that has a clearly articulated goal > > has a clearly explained design, often expressed in an overview > > Note is illustrated with insightful examples has good test cases > > In short, we expect you to have invested significant time in > > your contribution before you ask others to invest their free > > time to review and improve it. > > Lead with that. > > - The other key operational policy is the identifiable human author. > > > If you want potential contributors to read the document, I suggest > leading with those two policy items, then boiling the rest down to two > bulleted lists: recommended and anti-recommended ways to use LLMs. > > I warmly endorse the principles, but they may belong elsewhere. > > > Norman >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
