Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
As to the current document, I still find unclear the project
commitment to "will not use genAI" with the separate policy for
contributions which documents the use thereof.
As I tried to explain, this is pragmatic: if a newcomer comes up
and
proposes a “simple” patch claimed to be LLM-assisted, I would
rather not
turn them down.
But the project itself, people who are explicitly engaged as
team
members etc., can make a stronger commitment. That’s the
spirit.
I think I see Greg's point: the "Policy for Contributions" and
"Project Commitments" sections could be made more precise and
consistent with a few word changes.
Greg, Ludo, WDYT about the changes below?
Jason
**Project Commitments**:
Just one change to Item 1: Replace "The project" with "The project
members" to mirror some of the wording changes below.
**Policy for Contributions**:
1) *GenAI use*. Contributors who are *not project members* (as
defined above) MAY use genAI to assist in their authoring process
for some contributions, subject to these restrictions:
1a) *GenAI disclosure*: [Same as current Item 1]
1b) *Acceptable genAI uses*: [Same as current Item 2]
2) Interaction: [Same as current Item 3, except for the first
sentence: "Contributors and project members MUST NOT use genAI for
direct interaction with other participants."]
3) *Exploratory analysis.* [Same as current Item 4, except for the
first sentence: "Contributors and project members are free to use
genAI as part of their exploratory process as long their final
contribution respects the above rules."]
