To whom? It's not against Github's ToS to submit a bad PR. Anyway, bad actors can just create new accounts. It makes more sense to circulate whitelists of people who are known not to be bad actors.
I also like the flexibility of a system like this. You don't have to completely refuse contributions from people who aren't whitelisted, but since the general admission queue is much longer and full of slop, it makes sense to give known good actors a shortcut to being given your attention.
I wouldn't do this where it's not clear there was an issue, but for something like the really poor OCaml PR that was floating around, reporting the user to me seems like a logical step to reduce the flood.
To whom? It's not against Github's ToS to submit a bad PR. Anyway, bad actors can just create new accounts. It makes more sense to circulate whitelists of people who are known not to be bad actors.
I also like the flexibility of a system like this. You don't have to completely refuse contributions from people who aren't whitelisted, but since the general admission queue is much longer and full of slop, it makes sense to give known good actors a shortcut to being given your attention.
Sufficiently bad PRs/comments/etc. are against the GitHub Terms of Service, look under section C (Acceptable Use), which links to https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici..., which then includes https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici..., on which you'll find multiple actions would describe posting AI slop (or things ancillary to it).
I wouldn't do this where it's not clear there was an issue, but for something like the really poor OCaml PR that was floating around, reporting the user to me seems like a logical step to reduce the flood.