This policy is straightforward and shouldn't be particularly controversial (I'm sure it will be bikeshedded to death though). It basically bans the obvious stuff ("don't just drop LLM generated comments onto PRs") and allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose.
edit: Wow people did not read the policy. It's literally just "if you use an LLM you are responsible for it, we will reject low quality PRs, please disclose that you have used an LLM". This is bog standard.
So...big caveat that this is still under review, so what we're talking about is a moving target, but based on what I can see, it seems considerably more nuanced than that. They basically ban LLM-authored code, with a careful carve-out to run an experiment to try to get only high-quality LLM PRs:
> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.
> We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy.
Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.
It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways:
> The following are allowed.
> Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase.
> Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC...
Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Revert an update because the person later claimed they checked it with an LLM?
The Linux policy on this is much superior and more sensible.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this?
Explicit permission can be useful to preemptively cut off some questions from well meaning people who, acting in good faith, might otherwise pester for clarification (no matter how silly / "obvious" it might otherwise be), or get agitated by misconstruing an all-banned list as being an overly verbose "no LLMs ever" overreach.
> It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: [...]
Many of us work or have worked in corporate settings where IT takes great pains to help detect and prevent data exfiltration, and have absolutely installed the corporate spyware to detect those kinds of actions when performed on their own closed source codebases. Others rely on the honor system - at least as far as you know - but still ban such actions out of copyright/trade secret concerns. If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture, a reminder that you've switched contexts might help when common sense proves uncommon.
While nannying can be obnoxious, I'm not sure that having a document one can point to/link/cite, to allay any raised concerns, counts.
> If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture, a reminder that you've switched contexts might help when common sense proves uncommon.
> If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture
If you've throroughly absorbed a culture of honoring non disclosure agreements (NDAs), which are legal contracts demanding you keep secrets and avoid sharing sensitive data or code...
> a reminder that you've switched contexts might help
A reminder that rust-lang is a transparent, open source project, with no non-disclosure agreements or trade secrets to keep private unto itself might help [1].
> when common sense proves uncommon.
Because everyone misses the "obvious" sometimes. And because "obvious" is a subjective value judgement, meaning people will disagree what is or is not obvious.
-------
1. That said, if you've got a private, corporate-internal, closed source fork, you might still be bound by such concerns. For example, various people have ported rust's stdlib to work on various consoles (xbox, playstation, etc.) - and one of the reasons you don't see that upstreamed is because doing so would require violating console vendor NDAs, as well as possibly their company's NDAs - possibly for such banal reasons as not wanting to leak a hint of a console port or new title before their marketing plans are ready to go to capitilize on any hype.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this?
I would have LOVED if the university course I took last winter had this. I had to take a very paranoid attitude to what was allowed.
What they're trying to avoid is a lot of unnecessary conflict with zealous anti-AI people calling for your exclusion for admitting to doing these things. There are people who would ban this too.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do?
Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that generative uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed").
I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it makes sense (considering what their policy is). It's more of a "we're not disallowing use in these particular scenarios, so you can still use LLMs for these if you want". Remember: it's a big project, and if they don't explicitly state something then people will ask and waste everyone's time.
Y tho? It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community"), now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil"
If anything, it reads to me as a proactive rebuttal of complaints that they don't allow LLMs; they're definitively stating that they do allow using them for very specific purposes.
> Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used.
What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
They're trying to avoid a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation.
If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug.
A llm generated bug that pretends it was a human created bug would be trying to abuse that presumption of validity, and therefore considered a dick move.
> If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug.
But theyre saying if they're 100 correct bug reports it's still banned.
The assumption here is that people act in good faith. If you break the rules, this indicates that you are not acting in good faith, and perhaps should no longer be welcome.
What are you even talking about lol the policy doesn't imply that at all.
That's in the "allowed with caveats" section. It's just saying to not open bug reports without first reading them yourself or your bug may be closed. No one is saying "by policy we will have to add the bug back in" jesus christ
The policy is insanely straightforward, idk how you can be misinterpreting it this badly. It's just "Disclose that you use a model, you are on the hook for reviewing model output as a human" and then some clear cut examples.
if an LLM says "I can't open a PR automatically until you solicit a review from a maintainer", i think that's good actually. likewise for proactively following the rest of the rules.
It's not the submitter who solicits, but the reviewer. They can't give code, AND THEN get approval, they need to be asked specifically for an llm created PR.
The point here if you read contributor comments is mainly to allow people to shut a PR down without having claims of “unfairness” because some other PR wasn’t shut down. These are “moderation policies” in the style of old internet forums, their primary purpose is to clear up ambiguity and make maintainer’s (moderators) lives easer.
The birth of vibe coding has seen interactions on public FOSS projects increasingly reminiscent of the flame wars and moderator hammers of the old forum days. A lot of projects have been behind the curve on preparing and codifying the hammers, probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately.
This is highly interesting. It seems clear to me that a lot of thought and work went into this. If I ever were to write a similar document, I'm sure I could learn a lot from this one. Props to the authors and all involved.
Note that there are currently several proposed policies (plus hundreds of discussions mostly in private channels), and frankly I'm not sure we'll ever reach a consensus (I'm a Rust project member).
Kudos to the team for this. I think it’s brave of them to stand up for their own experiences and push back against the hype train.
Before you knee jerk hate on the team for being luddites, consider:
1. For a language like rust there’s too few eyes and too many mouths. Reviewing is a job, and is extremely taxing.
2. The code base needs to be highly hermetic because it’s load bearing across the global economy
3. Most changes are only relevant if they’ve followed extensive process, including community feedback.
It does in the narrower sense of vibe coding (as opposed to more general agentic coding, which is also called vibe coding from time to time...).
> Solicited, non-critical, high-quality, well-tested, and well-reviewed code changes that are originally authored by an LLM are allowed, with disclosure.
Vibe coding (in its original meaning) would have hard time arguing it's of high quality.
But one of the reasons they switched was because the compiler upstream for the original language they used, Zig, wouldn't accept slop contributions they wanted to make for Bun perf. What will they do when they need to try to push a slop contribution upstream to rust?
At this point they will probably just fork yet again and maintain some vibe compiler.
No, they've explicitly denied it.[0] However, they do regularly dig at how much faster their fork is[1][2] that they can't merge because of Zig's AI policy.
Huh. I wonder if the original intent was to merge an AI generated PR to a high-profile project like Zig. It makes the headlines and generates hype. But that went embarassingly bad for them so they had "port Bun to Rust" as a backup.
They should make FullstackLang. It compiles English in .md to machine code that can directly run on the specialized hardware it designs for it that you have to 3d print at runtime. Every program gets its own custom hardware. Composability and reuse be damned. Pay the token masters for every thought you have
The term scope creep comes to mind. Programming languages do not need to grow exponentially 24/7, its okay to let it grow slowly and stay mature and secure. If Rust were too bleeding edge, the safety promises would corrode over time. I think a better use of some of those PRs is to focus on crates as proof of concepts for things that could benefit Rust if it were included either in the standard library, or just available as a crate you can use for programmer ergonomic reasons.
Please do fork Rust and maintain it for the LLM true believers. I’m sure the real rust team would be delighted to see fewer low-effort PRs.
Given what you’ve said above it would be an easy task ‘accelerating quality and features exponentially’, so you’ll soon be able to show them (perhaps within days!), the error of their ways.
That's an ambitious conclusion, and not as overly so as some may think.
But I believe it is not the reason Rust adopted this policy, I think they just have a more basal and subjective dislike of AI irrespective of whatever truth you may have just cited.
Rust is already well past 1.0. At best an LLM could discover a vulnerability (and the human using it can file a patch) or can help a human improve ergonomics.
LLM delusion is insufferable. If all it takes is tokens to make a significantly better in programming language in logarithmic time why hasn't anyone done it?
As someone who's vibecoding my own self-hosted language (via a typescript to c++ transpiler and bootstrap), I can tell you mainline commercial models like Opus 4.7 aren't quite there yet. I'm getting 10KB source files balloon into 80MB outputs for now.
The main problem is that the the problem space is vast and highly interconnected, the LLM needs to reason about the entire language every time it suggest an architectural change, but it can't, so it suggests local changes that make sense to me - a language hobbyist - then runs into much more difficult problems down the road.
Maybe Mythos with a lot of (competent) human hand-holding and pre-design can do it.
> I expect soon we will see Rust forks with a pro-LLM policy
I sure hope so. I expect the end result will disprove the following:
> The Rust team will never be able to catch up to them
The AI jackasses have been braying in this key for going on a few years now, and there hasn't been one single time any of this breathless noise has resulted in something meaningfully superior. It's time to put up or shut up. Enough bullshit talk. If you can vibeslop a better Rust (or whatever), JFDI and leave everyone behind.
> This policy is intended to live in Forge as a living document, not as a dead RFC.
Oh... I can’t say for certain who wrote it, and I won’t make any definitive claims - personally, I tend to think it was probably mostly written, or at least conceived, by a man - but this sort of phrase… I get a nervous twitch every time I see it, even though it’s actually quite a clever rhetorical device. Hell... Maybe I just need a break; I don’t know, since I’m starting to see LLMs everywhere...
> ## Other organizations
> These are organized along a spectrum of AI friendliness, where top is least friendly, and bottom is most friendly.
This section is an extremely useful reference
[dead]
This policy is straightforward and shouldn't be particularly controversial (I'm sure it will be bikeshedded to death though). It basically bans the obvious stuff ("don't just drop LLM generated comments onto PRs") and allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose.
edit: Wow people did not read the policy. It's literally just "if you use an LLM you are responsible for it, we will reject low quality PRs, please disclose that you have used an LLM". This is bog standard.
So...big caveat that this is still under review, so what we're talking about is a moving target, but based on what I can see, it seems considerably more nuanced than that. They basically ban LLM-authored code, with a careful carve-out to run an experiment to try to get only high-quality LLM PRs:
> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.
> We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy.
Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.
"allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose."
Are you sure? It says:
"It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to *create*."
The discussion thread in the PR is also interesting to got through, lots of people concern in the HN discussion are already well discussed there
Here are the actual policies, not a comment:
https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol...
It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways:
> The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC...
Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Revert an update because the person later claimed they checked it with an LLM?
The Linux policy on this is much superior and more sensible.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this?
Explicit permission can be useful to preemptively cut off some questions from well meaning people who, acting in good faith, might otherwise pester for clarification (no matter how silly / "obvious" it might otherwise be), or get agitated by misconstruing an all-banned list as being an overly verbose "no LLMs ever" overreach.
> It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: [...]
Many of us work or have worked in corporate settings where IT takes great pains to help detect and prevent data exfiltration, and have absolutely installed the corporate spyware to detect those kinds of actions when performed on their own closed source codebases. Others rely on the honor system - at least as far as you know - but still ban such actions out of copyright/trade secret concerns. If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture, a reminder that you've switched contexts might help when common sense proves uncommon.
While nannying can be obnoxious, I'm not sure that having a document one can point to/link/cite, to allay any raised concerns, counts.
> If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture, a reminder that you've switched contexts might help when common sense proves uncommon.
What?
> If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture
If you've throroughly absorbed a culture of honoring non disclosure agreements (NDAs), which are legal contracts demanding you keep secrets and avoid sharing sensitive data or code...
> a reminder that you've switched contexts might help
A reminder that rust-lang is a transparent, open source project, with no non-disclosure agreements or trade secrets to keep private unto itself might help [1].
> when common sense proves uncommon.
Because everyone misses the "obvious" sometimes. And because "obvious" is a subjective value judgement, meaning people will disagree what is or is not obvious.
-------
1. That said, if you've got a private, corporate-internal, closed source fork, you might still be bound by such concerns. For example, various people have ported rust's stdlib to work on various consoles (xbox, playstation, etc.) - and one of the reasons you don't see that upstreamed is because doing so would require violating console vendor NDAs, as well as possibly their company's NDAs - possibly for such banal reasons as not wanting to leak a hint of a console port or new title before their marketing plans are ready to go to capitilize on any hype.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this?
I would have LOVED if the university course I took last winter had this. I had to take a very paranoid attitude to what was allowed.
What they're trying to avoid is a lot of unnecessary conflict with zealous anti-AI people calling for your exclusion for admitting to doing these things. There are people who would ban this too.
So then the Rust maintainers are going to give you an F on your report card?
Try using allman braces and see how far you get on a basic issue like that
No they’ll just drop() you
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do?
Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that generative uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed").
I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it makes sense (considering what their policy is). It's more of a "we're not disallowing use in these particular scenarios, so you can still use LLMs for these if you want". Remember: it's a big project, and if they don't explicitly state something then people will ask and waste everyone's time.
Y tho? It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community"), now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil"
If anything, it reads to me as a proactive rebuttal of complaints that they don't allow LLMs; they're definitively stating that they do allow using them for very specific purposes.
Needs to be "solicited" from a senior dev. How many requests for ai code do you think they will be making?
They're just giving examples of what you can do and explicitly saying so. Saying "you couldn't stop me" is completely missing the point.
This is not very different from the Linux kernel's policy so it's an odd comparison. It's actually almost identical in practical terms.
edit: lol proof that this doc needs to be stupidly explicit is in the pudding with the HN comments going out of their way to radically misread it
It feels telling that it reads like university course guidelines.
What do you mean?
Some of these are just straight up unhinged.
> Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used.
What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
They're trying to avoid a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation.
If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug.
A llm generated bug that pretends it was a human created bug would be trying to abuse that presumption of validity, and therefore considered a dick move.
> If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug.
But theyre saying if they're 100 correct bug reports it's still banned.
That's hysterical
That's the baby out with the bathwater.
The assumption here is that people act in good faith. If you break the rules, this indicates that you are not acting in good faith, and perhaps should no longer be welcome.
Sounds very welcoming. I came here for the code, not to join some social club
What are you even talking about lol the policy doesn't imply that at all.
That's in the "allowed with caveats" section. It's just saying to not open bug reports without first reading them yourself or your bug may be closed. No one is saying "by policy we will have to add the bug back in" jesus christ
The policy is insanely straightforward, idk how you can be misinterpreting it this badly. It's just "Disclose that you use a model, you are on the hook for reviewing model output as a human" and then some clear cut examples.
See https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...
I wonder what will happen once these guidelines end up in the LLM training datasets
if an LLM says "I can't open a PR automatically until you solicit a review from a maintainer", i think that's good actually. likewise for proactively following the rest of the rules.
It's not the submitter who solicits, but the reviewer. They can't give code, AND THEN get approval, they need to be asked specifically for an llm created PR.
https://i.imgur.com/129TCNu.png
Content not viewable in I and I's region
Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely.
Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.
The people who submit low quality LLM-generated PRs often don't bother to read the policies first, but at least it will be easier to reject those.
The point here if you read contributor comments is mainly to allow people to shut a PR down without having claims of “unfairness” because some other PR wasn’t shut down. These are “moderation policies” in the style of old internet forums, their primary purpose is to clear up ambiguity and make maintainer’s (moderators) lives easer.
The birth of vibe coding has seen interactions on public FOSS projects increasingly reminiscent of the flame wars and moderator hammers of the old forum days. A lot of projects have been behind the curve on preparing and codifying the hammers, probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately.
> probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately.
Yeah this is autistic bunk. If you run an open source project, dealing with people is part and parcel of it, disagreements as well.
[dead]
Ok but what if their OpenClaw reads it for them
This is highly interesting. It seems clear to me that a lot of thought and work went into this. If I ever were to write a similar document, I'm sure I could learn a lot from this one. Props to the authors and all involved.
Note that there are currently several proposed policies (plus hundreds of discussions mostly in private channels), and frankly I'm not sure we'll ever reach a consensus (I'm a Rust project member).
Kudos to the team for this. I think it’s brave of them to stand up for their own experiences and push back against the hype train.
Before you knee jerk hate on the team for being luddites, consider:
1. For a language like rust there’s too few eyes and too many mouths. Reviewing is a job, and is extremely taxing. 2. The code base needs to be highly hermetic because it’s load bearing across the global economy 3. Most changes are only relevant if they’ve followed extensive process, including community feedback.
On a general note, I like vouch by mitchellh.
> People must be vouched for before interacting with certain parts of a project (the exact parts are configurable to the project to enforce).
https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch
I think many projects will adopt this instead of allowing everyone / blocking everyone
Many projects have "ai slop" check in place to directly close and ban user if it is "ai slop". Else, it will be hard to handle the velocity of PRs
Maybe a network of ppl who can vouch they meet in real life?
I don't know if having your name/ face a secret is still acceptable? Maybe tiers of devs (anon vs other) on that one?
Github just won't respond at all.
Oh no where is Bun gonna be ported to next?
Nothing. You can always vibe-code in Rust even when the rust-lang/rust repository itself largely forbids vibe coding.
> even when the rust-lang/rust repository itself largely forbids vibe coding.
This policy does not seem to forbid vibe coding?
It does in the narrower sense of vibe coding (as opposed to more general agentic coding, which is also called vibe coding from time to time...).
> Solicited, non-critical, high-quality, well-tested, and well-reviewed code changes that are originally authored by an LLM are allowed, with disclosure.
Vibe coding (in its original meaning) would have hard time arguing it's of high quality.
I read it as a hypothetical
But one of the reasons they switched was because the compiler upstream for the original language they used, Zig, wouldn't accept slop contributions they wanted to make for Bun perf. What will they do when they need to try to push a slop contribution upstream to rust?
At this point they will probably just fork yet again and maintain some vibe compiler.
Is there a citation for this? This was my suspicion but it's quite amazing if this was the actual reason for the bun spectacle
No, they've explicitly denied it.[0] However, they do regularly dig at how much faster their fork is[1][2] that they can't merge because of Zig's AI policy.
[0]: https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2051600118886138262
[1]: https://x.com/bunjavascript/status/2048427636414923250
[2]: https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2053050239423312035
Huh. I wonder if the original intent was to merge an AI generated PR to a high-profile project like Zig. It makes the headlines and generates hype. But that went embarassingly bad for them so they had "port Bun to Rust" as a backup.
They should make FullstackLang. It compiles English in .md to machine code that can directly run on the specialized hardware it designs for it that you have to 3d print at runtime. Every program gets its own custom hardware. Composability and reuse be damned. Pay the token masters for every thought you have
Saying "LLM" now sounds dumb. Just say "model". Some are no longer "large" and that is arbitrary.
[dead]
[flagged]
The term scope creep comes to mind. Programming languages do not need to grow exponentially 24/7, its okay to let it grow slowly and stay mature and secure. If Rust were too bleeding edge, the safety promises would corrode over time. I think a better use of some of those PRs is to focus on crates as proof of concepts for things that could benefit Rust if it were included either in the standard library, or just available as a crate you can use for programmer ergonomic reasons.
Please do fork Rust and maintain it for the LLM true believers. I’m sure the real rust team would be delighted to see fewer low-effort PRs.
Given what you’ve said above it would be an easy task ‘accelerating quality and features exponentially’, so you’ll soon be able to show them (perhaps within days!), the error of their ways.
Please go do it now, we’ll wait.
That's an ambitious conclusion, and not as overly so as some may think.
But I believe it is not the reason Rust adopted this policy, I think they just have a more basal and subjective dislike of AI irrespective of whatever truth you may have just cited.
It doesn't really read like a Luddite policy.
Rust is already well past 1.0. At best an LLM could discover a vulnerability (and the human using it can file a patch) or can help a human improve ergonomics.
LLM delusion is insufferable. If all it takes is tokens to make a significantly better in programming language in logarithmic time why hasn't anyone done it?
As someone who's vibecoding my own self-hosted language (via a typescript to c++ transpiler and bootstrap), I can tell you mainline commercial models like Opus 4.7 aren't quite there yet. I'm getting 10KB source files balloon into 80MB outputs for now.
The main problem is that the the problem space is vast and highly interconnected, the LLM needs to reason about the entire language every time it suggest an architectural change, but it can't, so it suggests local changes that make sense to me - a language hobbyist - then runs into much more difficult problems down the road.
Maybe Mythos with a lot of (competent) human hand-holding and pre-design can do it.
> I expect soon we will see Rust forks with a pro-LLM policy
I sure hope so. I expect the end result will disprove the following:
> The Rust team will never be able to catch up to them
The AI jackasses have been braying in this key for going on a few years now, and there hasn't been one single time any of this breathless noise has resulted in something meaningfully superior. It's time to put up or shut up. Enough bullshit talk. If you can vibeslop a better Rust (or whatever), JFDI and leave everyone behind.
Would love to see that happen, personally. All this power being held back by red tape. We need to unleash the beast.
What do you think is stopping anyone from starting a fork right now? Is it a licensing issue?
Attention issue. They are desperate.
> This policy is intended to live in Forge as a living document, not as a dead RFC.
Oh... I can’t say for certain who wrote it, and I won’t make any definitive claims - personally, I tend to think it was probably mostly written, or at least conceived, by a man - but this sort of phrase… I get a nervous twitch every time I see it, even though it’s actually quite a clever rhetorical device. Hell... Maybe I just need a break; I don’t know, since I’m starting to see LLMs everywhere...
I feel like I saw phrasing like this pretty often even before LLMs were a thing
i'm not a man.