Debian has always been Debian and thus there are these purist opinions, but perhaps my take too would be something along the "one-strike-and-you-are-out" kind of a policy (i.e., you submit slop without being able to explain your submission in any way) already followed in some projects:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47109952

▲

bombcar a day ago | parent | next [-]

This is like trying to stop spam by banning emails that send you spam.

They can spin up LLM-backed contributors faster than you can ban them.

	▲	jruohonen a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If the situation becomes that worse, I agree with you; otherwise, I don't see that as a problem.
	▲	ApolloFortyNine a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Banning AI would hardly stop that, the LLM contributors would simply claim they're not AI. Hence why banning AI contributions is meaningless, you literally only punish 'good' actors.

▲

theptip a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah this is what I was getting at with “reputation” - I think the world where anyone can submit a patch and get human eyes on it is a thing of the past.

IIRC Mitchell Hashimoto recently proposed some system of attestations for OSS contributors. It’s non-obvious how you’d scale this.