Am Mi., 11. März 2026 um 03:39 Uhr schrieb Sam James <[email protected]>: > > Kai Krakow <[email protected]> writes: > > > But I'm not sure if that should be discussed further here, and I'm > > fine with leaving it as an open question to discuss somewhere else. > > And I'm fine with being extra careful with getting involved in any > > core tooling just to avoid violating any policy, and only contribute > > when the policy applies a clearly defined scope, e.g. just > > contributing ebuilds. > > I'm a bit surprised to hear this argument. I think it's obvious that if > you wrote some script and it happened to use chardet (*) which is > developed using AI but suppose it is otherwise unproblematic, that > wouldn't count. You're also free to ask if you're unsure.
Thanks for the kind offer - it's good to hear. My concern is with what the exact scope of the Gentoo AI policy is. It is easy to understand the direct implications, like contributing an ebuild. But it doesn't clearly define the deeper scope, like having a package as part of core tooling and infrastructure. As an example: what does it mean for the requirements towards such a package? For now, it's pretty clear it should be avoided - that's a good decision already, and a good rule to follow. But I think the wiki page should have more details. This also clearly explains the reasoning for Gentoo moving away from Github - because it's difficult to impossible to avoid any Co-Pilot functions that MS constantly slams into your face, and which you cannot really turn off. So people clicking "request co-pilot review" is probably not the only reason but one of them. It will make the ebuild an "AI-assisted" creation which the policy prohibits. > (*) Of course, with the licencing situation now too being well-known, > that would be ill-advised, so I'd be surprised if someone did that. Regards, Kai
