From 104ba3ab4e61279140ef816e49e56b5273fcbf03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 22:00:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/9] Add *no low-effort contributions* policy We previously proposed a *no low-effort contributions* policy in LC issue 273, where it had gone into FCP. In this commit, we add the text of that proposed policy in RFC format. We may later add other sections -- e.g., motivation, rationale, unresolved questions, etc. In the interest of expediency, we're starting with just the policy itself and the associated examples. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/3936-contribution-policy.md diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..5540b7132ab --- /dev/null +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +- Feature Name: N/A +- Start Date: 2026-03-13 +- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#3936](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3936) +- Issue: [rust-lang/leadership-council#273](https://github.com/rust-lang/leadership-council/issues/273) + +## Summary +[summary]: #summary + +We adopt a *no low-effort contributions* policy for the Rust Project. + +## Contribution policy + +*Contributions* refer to pull requests, issues, proposals, and comments. + +- **Effort**: If you're not putting in the same level of effort a maintainer will have to put in to review it, then you're not adding value. This level varies by the task and by the cost of review, but it's never less than being careful and thoughtful. +- **Accountability**: We hold you responsible for everything you send to us. We expect you to understand it and be able to explain it. We expect you to check it carefully. Respect our time. +- **Compassion**: In taking the time to answer your questions and review what you've proposed, we're making an investment in you. We want to make you better able to help us. Keep that in mind when we're offering feedback. Listen carefully. Reflect on it. Reply to us compassionately. We're trying to help; making our maintainers feel bad about that leads to burnout. + +Contributions that fail to satisfy these criteria are *low-effort contributions*. + +Maintainers and moderators are **not** required to put effort into explaining rejection of low-effort contributions. + +## Examples of low-effort contributions + +- Fully AI-generated and not carefully self-reviewed contributions are *low-effort*. + - These are informally known as "slop" or as "vibecoding". + - These include those produced by [OpenClaw](https://openclaw.ai/) or similar tools. + - Code, PR descriptions, bug reports, proposals, and comments are all low-effort if fully-generated and not carefully self-reviewed. +- Feeding maintainer questions into AI tools and then proxying the output directly back to the reviewer is *low-effort* and lacks *compassion*. + +This list is nonexhaustive. From a01d5324d7e49ac0a15a8a14ecf718ef3b63781b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:36:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/9] Switch to WP for OpenClaw link In discussion, we had wanted to be concrete in mentioning "OpenClaw or similar tools", and to link to something for OpenClaw for people who are not familiar, but we also maybe don't want to advertise them too much, so let's link to Wikipedia instead of to their website. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index 5540b7132ab..57894aeb791 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Maintainers and moderators are **not** required to put effort into explaining re - Fully AI-generated and not carefully self-reviewed contributions are *low-effort*. - These are informally known as "slop" or as "vibecoding". - - These include those produced by [OpenClaw](https://openclaw.ai/) or similar tools. + - These include those produced by [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) or similar tools. - Code, PR descriptions, bug reports, proposals, and comments are all low-effort if fully-generated and not carefully self-reviewed. - Feeding maintainer questions into AI tools and then proxying the output directly back to the reviewer is *low-effort* and lacks *compassion*. From 793885add038074c97b6dcb30c24e41db3bbcb7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:51:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/9] Switch an "or" to an "and" This sentence, in the examples, reads better with "and" rather than with "or", so let's switch the word. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index 57894aeb791..b55760297e6 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Maintainers and moderators are **not** required to put effort into explaining re - Fully AI-generated and not carefully self-reviewed contributions are *low-effort*. - These are informally known as "slop" or as "vibecoding". - - These include those produced by [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) or similar tools. + - These include those produced by [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) and similar tools. - Code, PR descriptions, bug reports, proposals, and comments are all low-effort if fully-generated and not carefully self-reviewed. - Feeding maintainer questions into AI tools and then proxying the output directly back to the reviewer is *low-effort* and lacks *compassion*. From a5e4927299329e3844a788fe15773f7592e5f0c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 04:20:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] Rework the clause about helping us The policy had said that "we want to make you better able to help us". We had meant this broadly. Someone being better able to help the open source ecosystem helps us too. Let's drop the clause about helping us and say directly that, in working with contributors, we're investing in the open source ecosystem. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index b55760297e6..87a8e3d7f22 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ We adopt a *no low-effort contributions* policy for the Rust Project. - **Effort**: If you're not putting in the same level of effort a maintainer will have to put in to review it, then you're not adding value. This level varies by the task and by the cost of review, but it's never less than being careful and thoughtful. - **Accountability**: We hold you responsible for everything you send to us. We expect you to understand it and be able to explain it. We expect you to check it carefully. Respect our time. -- **Compassion**: In taking the time to answer your questions and review what you've proposed, we're making an investment in you. We want to make you better able to help us. Keep that in mind when we're offering feedback. Listen carefully. Reflect on it. Reply to us compassionately. We're trying to help; making our maintainers feel bad about that leads to burnout. +- **Compassion**: In taking the time to answer your questions and review what you've proposed, we're making an investment in you and in the open source community. Keep that in mind when we're offering feedback. Listen carefully. Reflect on it. Reply to us compassionately. We're trying to help; making our maintainers feel bad about that leads to burnout. Contributions that fail to satisfy these criteria are *low-effort contributions*. From 5f576a52055d1d56595a8dc590a8e4e3b30a06d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 04:16:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 5/9] Switch to "be present" policy name and framing Rather than framing the policy in terms of "no low-effort contributions", let's frame it in terms of a requirement that the contributor "be present". This, I think, better captures what we're trying to achieve. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index 87a8e3d7f22..823ac725dfe 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -6,26 +6,28 @@ ## Summary [summary]: #summary -We adopt a *no low-effort contributions* policy for the Rust Project. +We adopt a *be present* contribution policy for the Rust Project. ## Contribution policy -*Contributions* refer to pull requests, issues, proposals, and comments. +Contributing to the Rust Project requires *being present* — present for the work and present when working with maintainers. -- **Effort**: If you're not putting in the same level of effort a maintainer will have to put in to review it, then you're not adding value. This level varies by the task and by the cost of review, but it's never less than being careful and thoughtful. -- **Accountability**: We hold you responsible for everything you send to us. We expect you to understand it and be able to explain it. We expect you to check it carefully. Respect our time. -- **Compassion**: In taking the time to answer your questions and review what you've proposed, we're making an investment in you and in the open source community. Keep that in mind when we're offering feedback. Listen carefully. Reflect on it. Reply to us compassionately. We're trying to help; making our maintainers feel bad about that leads to burnout. +- **Effort**: Being present means pulling your weight — putting in the same level of effort a maintainer will have to put in to review it. This level varies by the task and by the cost of review, but it's never less than being careful and thoughtful. +- **Accountability**: Being present means being responsible for everything you send us. We expect you to be involved with the work, to understand it, to be able to explain it, to check it carefully, and to respect our time. +- **Compassion**: Being present means engaging respectfully with reviewers. In taking the time to answer your questions and review what you've proposed, we're making an investment in you and in the open source community. Keep that in mind when we're offering feedback — listen carefully, reflect on it, and reply to us compassionately. We're trying to help; making our maintainers feel bad about that leads to burnout. -Contributions that fail to satisfy these criteria are *low-effort contributions*. +When these criteria are not satisfied, we say that the contributor is *not present*. -Maintainers and moderators are **not** required to put effort into explaining rejection of low-effort contributions. +Maintainers and moderators are **not** required to put effort into explaining rejection of contributions where the contributor is not present. -## Examples of low-effort contributions +*Contributions* include pull requests, issues, proposals, and comments. -- Fully AI-generated and not carefully self-reviewed contributions are *low-effort*. - - These are informally known as "slop" or as "vibecoding". - - These include those produced by [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) and similar tools. - - Code, PR descriptions, bug reports, proposals, and comments are all low-effort if fully-generated and not carefully self-reviewed. -- Feeding maintainer questions into AI tools and then proxying the output directly back to the reviewer is *low-effort* and lacks *compassion*. +### Examples of failing to be present + +- If the contribution is fully AI-generated and the contributor was not in-the-loop, did not carefully review the result, or does not understand it, then the contributor is *not present*. + - These contributions are informally known as "slop" and this behavior is informally known as "vibecoding". + - Use of tools such as [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) presents a high risk of producing these contributions and this behavior. +- Contributors must be present not just when submitting code, but when writing PR descriptions, bug reports, proposals, and comments. +- If one feeds maintainer questions into AI tools and then proxies the output directly back to the reviewer, one is not present, and this behavior lacks *compassion*. This list is nonexhaustive. From f82d9eadd85199a3d990330ca37a5dff79792a6d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 05:16:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 6/9] Add design axioms The policy rests on four principles. These are beliefs about how to approach drafting a successful policy. Let's document these. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index 823ac725dfe..95af63400c4 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -8,6 +8,19 @@ We adopt a *be present* contribution policy for the Rust Project. +## Design axioms + +The policy rests on four principles — four *beliefs* about how to approach drafting a successful policy. + +- **Let's start from common ground.** + - I.e., people have diverse views; let's start with those that we share. +- **What matters is what's in front of us.** + - I.e., what comes over the wall is what defines our experience; we can tell when a PR is well reviewed and when a contributor understands it. +- **Policy defines the unacceptable, not the disappointing.** + - I.e., policy needs to err on the side of avoiding false positives because we'll put moral weight behind these determinations. Well-meaning people acting reasonably will still sometimes disappoint us, and that's not what we're trying to catch. +- **Contributing requires being present.** + - I.e., we expect the person coming to us to be engaged in the work and with us. This is true whether the person is using tools or whether the person is bringing to us the work of an internal team. + ## Contribution policy Contributing to the Rust Project requires *being present* — present for the work and present when working with maintainers. From 045c2965784a9439d59938f112c12b14b1792174 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:10:42 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 7/9] Revise the examples Let's revise the examples to connect more directly to each criterion and to the *be present* framing. Let's also explicitly call out that "extreme care" is needed when using certain tools. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index 95af63400c4..53c6b75adae 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ Maintainers and moderators are **not** required to put effort into explaining re ### Examples of failing to be present -- If the contribution is fully AI-generated and the contributor was not in-the-loop, did not carefully review the result, or does not understand it, then the contributor is *not present*. - - These contributions are informally known as "slop" and this behavior is informally known as "vibecoding". - - Use of tools such as [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) presents a high risk of producing these contributions and this behavior. -- Contributors must be present not just when submitting code, but when writing PR descriptions, bug reports, proposals, and comments. -- If one feeds maintainer questions into AI tools and then proxies the output directly back to the reviewer, one is not present, and this behavior lacks *compassion*. +These illustrate how to apply the policy. The list is not exhaustive. -This list is nonexhaustive. +- Submitting AI-generated work when you weren't in-the-loop, when you haven't checked it with care, when you don't understand it, or when you can't explain it to a reviewer fails *accountability*. If you haven't engaged with the work and can't engage with review questions about it, you aren't being present as its contributor. +- Feeding reviewer questions into an AI tool and proxying the output directly back fails *compassion*. The reviewer is investing in you; that investment requires your presence. +- Submitting work — whether AI-generated, written by others (and used with permission), or written by hand — without exercising care and attention proportional to what you're asking of reviewers fails *effort*. Presence is incompatible with carelessness and inattention. + +Informally, contributions that fall short may be called "slop" and the behavior "vibecoding". Use of tools such as [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) presents a high risk of producing these contributions and this behavior. Extreme care is needed if using these tools. From c408031c4ce84bd1f3b24bb1d417250169226393 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:31:16 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 8/9] Remove mention of OpenClaw from examples Is there any way to use OpenClaw correctly? I don't actually know. I'm not familiar enough with it. I had added it only because some thought giving this specific example would be helpful. In reviewing its Wikipedia page and README, it doesn't seem obviously categorically different than other tools, but maybe it attracts a different kind of user or encourages a different kind of use. In drafting, I had hoped that "high risk" and "extreme care" would provide sufficient signposts, but initial feedback on this text suggests that it's not serving its intended purpose. Let's delete it. We intend for this policy to be tool-agnostic, so it's actually natural for us to not mention any specific tools. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index 53c6b75adae..e476a0a040d 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -43,4 +43,4 @@ These illustrate how to apply the policy. The list is not exhaustive. - Feeding reviewer questions into an AI tool and proxying the output directly back fails *compassion*. The reviewer is investing in you; that investment requires your presence. - Submitting work — whether AI-generated, written by others (and used with permission), or written by hand — without exercising care and attention proportional to what you're asking of reviewers fails *effort*. Presence is incompatible with carelessness and inattention. -Informally, contributions that fall short may be called "slop" and the behavior "vibecoding". Use of tools such as [OpenClaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenClaw) presents a high risk of producing these contributions and this behavior. Extreme care is needed if using these tools. +Informally, contributions that fall short may be called "slop" and the behavior "vibecoding". From b89bb8ae1dfdae5fa1d9569000590e62d2f13eaf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Travis Cross Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 22:50:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 9/9] Revise *compassion* policy prong We heard feedback that the *compassion* prong felt a bit one-sided. This is a policy for the behavior of contributors, so we do want to keep the focus there, but we can balance this out a bit by taking a cue from the *effort* prong. That prong states that the level of effort of the contributor needs to match that of the reviewers -- the fact the reviewers put in high effort is simply taken for granted. For this one, let's note matter-of-factly that reviewers apply care and kindness to interactions and then state our expectations of contributors in terms of that. --- text/3936-contribution-policy.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md index e476a0a040d..44ccab31d34 100644 --- a/text/3936-contribution-policy.md +++ b/text/3936-contribution-policy.md @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Contributing to the Rust Project requires *being present* — present for the wo - **Effort**: Being present means pulling your weight — putting in the same level of effort a maintainer will have to put in to review it. This level varies by the task and by the cost of review, but it's never less than being careful and thoughtful. - **Accountability**: Being present means being responsible for everything you send us. We expect you to be involved with the work, to understand it, to be able to explain it, to check it carefully, and to respect our time. -- **Compassion**: Being present means engaging respectfully with reviewers. In taking the time to answer your questions and review what you've proposed, we're making an investment in you and in the open source community. Keep that in mind when we're offering feedback — listen carefully, reflect on it, and reply to us compassionately. We're trying to help; making our maintainers feel bad about that leads to burnout. +- **Compassion**: Being present means engaging with reviewers as collaborators. Reviewers take your work seriously and use care and kindness in interactions. Help them help everyone by listening carefully, reflecting, and replying compassionately. When these criteria are not satisfied, we say that the contributor is *not present*.