On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 09:42:25AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello folks, > as you might now, there is a proposal for a new *Fedora AI-Assisted > Contributions Policy* which the Councils hould vote on soon. > > Since the first proposal, it has evolved based on your feedback. > > Here is what we are about to vote on: > > *Fedora AI-Assisted Contributions Policy* > ========================================= > > 1. You *MAY* use AI assistance for contributing to Fedora, as long as you > follow the principles described below. > > 2. *Accountability:* You *MUST* take the responsibility for your > contribution: Contributing to Fedora means vouching for the quality, license > compliance, and utility of your submission. All contributions, whether from > a human author or assisted by large language models (LLMs) or other > generative AI tools, must meet the project's standards for inclusion. The > contributor is always the author and is fully accountable for their > contributions. > > 3. *Transparency:* You *MUST* disclose the use of AI tools when the > significant part of the contribution is taken from a tool without changes. > You *SHOULD* disclose the other uses of AI tools, where it might be useful. > Routine use of assistive tools for correcting grammar and spelling, or for > clarifying language, does not require disclosure. > > Information about the use of AI tools will help us evaluate their > impact, build new best practices and adjust existing processes. > > Disclosures are made where authorship is normally indicated. For > contributions tracked in git, the recommended method is an `Assisted-by:` > commit message trailer. For other contributions, disclosure may include > document preambles, design file metadata, or translation notes. > > Examples: > > Assisted-by: generic LLM chatbot > Assisted-by: ChatGPTv > > 4. *Contribution & Community Evaluation:* AI tools may be used to assist > human reviewers by providing analysis and suggestions. You MUST NOT use AI > as the sole or final arbiter in making a substantive or subjective judgment > on a contribution, nor may it be used to evaluate a person's standing within > the community (e.g., for funding, leadership roles, or Code of Conduct > matters). This does not prohibit the use of automated tooling for objective > technical validation, such as CI/CD pipelines, automated testing, or spam > filtering. The final accountability for accepting a contribution, even if > implemented by an automated system, always rests with the human contributor > who authorizes the action. > > 5. *Large scale initiatives:* The policy doesn't cover the large scale > initiatives which may significantly change the ways the project operates or > lead to exponential growth in contributions in some parts of the project. > Such initiatives need to be discussed separately with the Fedora Council. > > Concerns about possible policy violations should be reported via private > tickets to Fedora Council(link). > > The key words "MAY", "MUST", "MUST NOT", and "SHOULD" in this document are > to be interpreted as described in *RFC 2119*. > > ==============================================================================
That policy sounds very reasonable to me. Pierre -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
