thisisnic commented on code in PR #55260: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/55260#discussion_r4380176428
########## docs/source/developers/overview.rst: ########## @@ -191,6 +191,22 @@ submitted contributions. See the `ASF's guidance on AI-generated code <https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html>`_ for further information on licensing considerations. +We expect human contributors to actively engage on the review process. We +recognise the value of using AI tools to understand the changes being requested +but we expect a human-in-the-loop for all engagements. Reviewer time is limited +and reviewers are not expected to be talking to contributors' agents but to +contributors themselves. If a reviewer finds that a contributor seems to rely +excessively on AI tools instead of engaging with the review, the PR might be +closed and/or tagged with a label indicating excessive AI usage. Review Comment: I appreciate we have a need for filtering out low-effort PRs, but I worry such a tag would create unnecessary drama, and think we might have an easier life by creating a positive tag and recommending reviewers filter on that if they want a low chance of AI PRs For what could qualify someone for a positive tag, I quite like the prioritisation order listed at the bottom of this blog post by Andrew Lamb: https://andrew.nerdnetworks.org/blog/2026/10/19/my-plan-for-reviewing-prs-in-open-source-projects-in-the-age-of-ai/ -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
