Skip to content

Extend AI policy#53

Merged
jackh726 merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ai-policy
Feb 23, 2026
Merged

Extend AI policy#53
jackh726 merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ai-policy

Conversation

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

@Kobzol Kobzol commented Feb 18, 2026

I thought we might add this, no strong opinion though.

@Kobzol Kobzol requested a review from jackh726 February 18, 2026 19:28
Copy link
Member

@jackh726 jackh726 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Eh, feels like...weird. Fine, but I lean towards no.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Feb 19, 2026

Ok, let's not write it here. Though I think we really should be doing the interviews.

@Kobzol Kobzol closed this Feb 19, 2026
@Kobzol Kobzol deleted the ai-policy branch February 19, 2026 10:07
@apiraino
Copy link

apiraino commented Feb 23, 2026

By scrolling through some of the submissions and Zulip messages, I think it would be fair to state that we want to assess the submissions. If not else, I interpret that as being respectul of the time of both parties (submitters and recipent).

Maybe the wording could be slightly different than suggested here. Example:

We might ask the submitter for a 1:1 assessment interview in case we have questions about the design of the proposal

my .2 cents

@jackh726
Copy link
Member

Yes, agreed @apiraino. I'm not sure that we need to default to interviews, but I think they are one tool of many to assess a potential contributor.

I like your wording, I would happy to add that.

@Kobzol Kobzol restored the ai-policy branch February 23, 2026 15:16
@Kobzol Kobzol reopened this Feb 23, 2026
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Feb 23, 2026

Reworded.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants