add a policy on AI usage #8682
add a policy on AI usage #8682
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: kannon92 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
area/contributor-guide
k8s-ci-robot
added
sig/contributor-experience
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/S
| difficulty of properly reviewing the Pull Request outweighs the benefit that | ||
| the Pull Request provides. | ||
|
|
||
| ## AI Guidance |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How's this? (feel free to leave things as is. wrote this as it just felt a bit jarring when i read it aloud).
## AI Guidance
Using AI tools to help write your PR is acceptable, but as the author, you are responsible for understanding every change.
Reviewers may ask questions about your AI-assisted code, and if you cannot explain why a change was made, the PR will be closed.
When responding to review comments, please do so without relying on AI tools. Reviewers want to engage directly with you, not with generated responses.
If you used AI tools in preparing your PR, please disclose this in the "Special notes for your reviewer" section.
Commit messages should follow the [Kubernetes policy](#commit-message-guidelines).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I went ahead and applied that. Yours does read a lot better.
my writing did feel a bit robotic.
kannon92
force-pushed
the
ai-attribution-policy
branch
from
ce4d0c1 to
afc7f4e
Compare
|
|
||
| Reviewers may ask questions about your AI-assisted code, and if you cannot explain why a change was made, the PR will be closed. | ||
|
|
||
| When responding to review comments, please do so without relying on AI tools. Reviewers want to engage directly with you, not with generated responses. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should it be made clear whether or not reviewers can rely on AI tools to assist in the review or response to comments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MorrisLaw that is yet to be determined and needs more discussion (and definitely not in this doc).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MorrisLaw that is a good question.
Someone did mention in the steering meeting about humans being in the loop for both authors of PRs and reviews. Even if we ask that authors do not use AI to respond. I think the counterpoint is inportant too (reviewers should not rely on AI to review or respond to requests)
I will admit to using copilot for reviews in some cases. Mostly on calling out missing test cases.
But I agree with @dims that maybe we can have that discussion separately.
7 participants
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Related to #8558.