14 Jul
2026
14 Jul
'26
4:19 p.m.
Hi all,
I said I'd do the prior-art survey. It's here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/AI_contribution_policies_in_other_projects
It's a wiki page. Please correct it directly.
The main caveat: almost none of this evidence is about standards. Of the
many organisations that are cataloged, by far most are code projects, where
CI catches some of what a reviewer otherwise would. The analogies may not
stretch far.
Three things that seemed relevant here. Ghostty required AI disclosure from
August 2025, for the reason Mattj gives. They still do, and have since
added a vouching system for first-time contributors as well. OpenJDK and
GraalVM are both Oracle projects whose contributors sign the same
agreement, and they published opposite policies six weeks apart. And curl
reopened the bug bounty it closed in January: volume hadn't fallen, but the
reports had stopped being wrong, which Stenberg attributes to the models
improving.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 6:21 PM Badri Sunderarajan <badrihippo(a)disroot.org>
wrote:
Hi all,
Firstly, thank you to MSavoritias (and Dave) for bringing focus to what
is actually the issue here: not the fact that something was created
using a certain technology or other but the fact that it is mindless
slop. I actually started composing an email to that effect earlier this
morning, but got a bit overwhelmed by all the nuances, so I'm thankful
to the others who managed to make a better job of it than I :-)
This does introduce a trade-off: For someone like
Edward,
self-described as being a newcomer writing in a second language, this
can be a hurdle. A good submission from someone not yet accustomed to
interacting with the community may struggle to gain traction, because
seeking that engagement is harder for them.
That said, requiring some minimal level of interaction before asking
Council to spend significant review effort doesn't seem unreasonable
to me. I mainly wanted to call out that trade-off to see whether it's
something we're comfortable with accepting.
While still leaving that trade-off on the table for everyone to think
about, I wonder if this might not be a positive change in other ways.
We have been talking in the past about encouraging more participation in
the standards list. Now we will have an incentive for submitters to
actually go out there and talk to people (to encourage more visible
discussion about the XEP) rather than sitting around waiting for the
Council to respond. This is an area where people can participate in a
less technical way as well ("hey it would be neat if my app could have
this feature" rather than the more technical "wait so how would that
work with X, Y, Z existing XEPs" that we have at the moment). I know
this can happen even without the additional "incentive" but it isn't,
and maybe this will be what pushes it.
(The other possibility is that the mailing list and MUCs get filled with
mindless-slop "discussions" as well, but hopefully "you have to also
text us" will be a decent barrier and I suspect the community will be
adept at weeding out any garbage that does make it through.)
~Badri