Re: [VOTE] Accept Maka into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding.

I’m happy to support this proposal and look forward to seeing the project
move forward in the ASF.



Best,
Huajie Wang



Xuanwo <[email protected]> 于2026年8月11日周二 00:24写道：

> +1 binding.
>
> I would be happy to mentor this project, and I'm glad to see that ASF can
> help
> incubate an AI agent project.
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, at 23:47, mingcheng wrote:
> > Hi tison,
> >
> > That works for me, and it is the better option: repo docs get read by
> > new contributors, but a proposal section does not.
> >
> > Nothing further from me.  My vote stays at 0 (non-binding).  Thanks
> > for picking this up directly. :D
> >
> > Best regards,
> > mingcheng
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 11:16 PM tison <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One small ask: the commitments in your message — AI-tooling
> >> > disclosure, the provenance review of the initial codebase, removing or
> >> > reimplementing anything whose licensing cannot be established, and
> >> > moving project-level decisions to the dev list — currently live only
> >> > in this thread. Could they be written into the proposal or the
> >> > podling's initial documentation, so that mentors and future reviewers
> >> > work from a single reference? I would also suggest the status of the
> >> > provenance review appear in the first podling report, since that is
> >> > the one item still outstanding as a plan rather than a completed
> >> > check.
> >>
> >> I'd prefer to directly update the repo's README or other docs to include
> >> that. Get it done without extra paperwork.
> >>
> >> Or if the initial committers need some time to figure it out, file an
> issue
> >> to track it down.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> tison.
> >>
> >>
> >> mingcheng <[email protected]> 于2026年8月10日周一 23:00写道：
> >>
> >> > Hi Kun,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you,  this is a substantive reply and it addresses most of what
> >> > I raised. I accept your reasoning for not providing a percentage: if
> >> > the repository does not preserve a reliable boundary between machine
> >> > suggestions and human edits, a number would imply unsubstantiated
> >> > precision. Documenting the tools, their use, the review practices and
> >> > the verification evidence is more useful, and I withdraw that request.
> >> >
> >> > One small ask: the commitments in your message — AI-tooling
> >> > disclosure, the provenance review of the initial codebase, removing or
> >> > reimplementing anything whose licensing cannot be established, and
> >> > moving project-level decisions to the dev list — currently live only
> >> > in this thread. Could they be written into the proposal or the
> >> > podling's initial documentation, so that mentors and future reviewers
> >> > work from a single reference? I would also suggest the status of the
> >> > provenance review appear in the first podling report, since that is
> >> > the one item still outstanding as a plan rather than a completed
> >> > check.
> >> >
> >> > Given the above, I am changing my vote to 0 (non-binding). My concerns
> >> > about the project's age and the concentration of development have not
> >> > disappeared, and I still think the project is early. But they are now
> >> > recorded, acknowledged by the project, and scheduled to be tracked,
> >> > which was what I wanted from raising them. I believe a continued -1
> >> > does not add value at this point, and I would prefer to see the effort
> >> > focused on the first two podling reports.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for engaging with this properly. Good luck with the incubation.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,  mingcheng
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 9:22 PM 李 坤 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Mingcheng,
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you for clarifying your concerns. We agree that the risks you
> >> > identified are worth discussing and tracking. To avoid talking past
> each
> >> > other, I would like to explain how we currently view the four points
> you
> >> > proposed.
> >> > >
> >> > > First, regarding community independence: Maka is young, and we do
> not
> >> > claim that the community is already mature. The proposal currently
> lists
> >> > seven initial committers with seven different affiliations: four
> companies,
> >> > two universities, and one individual contributor. It also
> acknowledges that
> >> > some initial contributors have overlapping social and professional
> >> > relationships.
> >> > >
> >> > > We agree that meaningful independence must ultimately be
> demonstrated
> >> > through sustained participation, review authority, release ownership,
> and
> >> > public decision-making—not merely through a list of affiliations. We
> >> > therefore see this as an important graduation criterion and something
> to
> >> > track in podling reports, rather than something we should claim as
> already
> >> > proven at entry.
> >> > >
> >> > > Second, regarding a time box and exit condition: the proposal
> already
> >> > acknowledges the risks associated with the project’s young age. It
> >> > estimates that incubation may take approximately two years, while
> making
> >> > graduation dependent on sustainable community growth, public
> governance,
> >> > shared release ownership, and compliant releases.
> >> > >
> >> > > If the project fails to develop a sustainable community, the
> Incubator’s
> >> > normal reporting and retirement processes already apply. We do not
> >> > currently believe that a Maka-specific automatic retirement trigger
> after
> >> > 12 months is necessary, but we are willing to make community
> diversity and
> >> > shared ownership explicit items in the podling’s early reports.
> >> > >
> >> > > Third, regarding AI-assisted development: we agree that this
> deserves
> >> > clearer explanation.
> >> > >
> >> > > AI-assisted programming is already a common engineering practice
> across
> >> > the industry and the open-source community. In Maka, it is not
> limited to
> >> > Jie or to the initial bootstrap period. Multiple developers use
> LLM-based
> >> > tools independently while working on different parts of the project.
> The
> >> > resulting code is still proposed, reviewed, tested, integrated, and
> owned
> >> > by human contributors.
> >> > >
> >> > > For current collaborative development, Maka places particular
> emphasis
> >> > on review quality. In addition to human peer review, we use LLMs
> >> > adversarially: a separate review pass, often using a separate model or
> >> > context, is instructed to challenge the proposed implementation
> rather than
> >> > continue it. It looks for correctness problems, security risks,
> missing
> >> > tests, maintainability issues, unsupported assumptions, and
> inconsistencies
> >> > with the existing architecture.
> >> > >
> >> > > This adversarial LLM review is an additional review layer, not a
> >> > replacement for human judgment. Human contributors remain responsible
> for
> >> > deciding whether a change is correct and acceptable. Automated tests,
> type
> >> > checking, builds, CI checks, and, where relevant, runtime or visual
> >> > verification provide evidence independent of either the generating
> model or
> >> > the reviewing model.
> >> > >
> >> > > For that reason, we believe the meaningful question is whether a
> >> > contribution has accountable human ownership and sufficient review and
> >> > verification—not what percentage of its text can be attributed to an
> LLM.
> >> > The May 20–23 bootstrap period was heavily AI-assisted, but the
> repository
> >> > does not preserve a reliable token-level boundary between machine
> >> > suggestions, human edits, review-driven revisions, and subsequent
> >> > integration. Providing a percentage would therefore imply a precision
> that
> >> > we cannot substantiate.
> >> > >
> >> > > We can instead document, to the extent that it can be reconstructed
> >> > reliably:
> >> > >
> >> > > - the primary tools used during the initial development;
> >> > > - the areas and purposes for which they were used;
> >> > > - the human and adversarial review practices applied;
> >> > > - and the tests or other verification evidence supporting the
> resulting
> >> > code.
> >> > >
> >> > > Going forward, we are also willing to make AI-tool disclosure and
> review
> >> > expectations explicit for contributions, consistent with ASF
> guidance. The
> >> > contributor submitting a change will remain accountable for its
> >> > correctness, licensing, and quality regardless of the tools used.
> >> > >
> >> > > LLM-based review is not treated as license clearance. The proposal
> >> > separately commits the project to reviewing the provenance of the
> initial
> >> > codebase, checking source and dependency licensing, and removing,
> >> > replacing, or reimplementing anything whose provenance or licensing
> cannot
> >> > be established. Such code will not be included in an Apache release.
> >> > >
> >> > > Finally, regarding public decision-making: we agree. The proposal
> >> > already states that project-level decisions and voting will move to
> the
> >> > public development mailing list after entering incubation. GitHub
> issues
> >> > and pull requests may continue to support implementation-level
> >> > collaboration, but they will not replace the mailing list for project
> and
> >> > community decisions.
> >> > >
> >> > > We are willing to improve the proposal by documenting the project’s
> >> > AI-assisted development and review practices more clearly. At the same
> >> > time, we believe that sustained community independence should be
> >> > demonstrated during incubation, and that the normal Incubator
> oversight and
> >> > retirement mechanisms are sufficient without introducing a
> project-specific
> >> > 12-month exit rule.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you again for making these concerns explicit.
> >> > >
> >> > > Best regards,
> >> > > Kun
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
> --
> Xuanwo
>
> https://xuanwo.io/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>