Add Generative AI/Low Effort Contribution Policy

[austinlparker]

This adds a new section to the contributor's guide addressing the usage of LLMs/GenAI in contributing to OpenTelemetry.

[mx-psi]

Should we talk about the project itself using LLM tooling? For example, on opentelemetry-collector-releases we have been testing dosu (see example here: open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-releases#701 (comment))

I guess if we want to cover this it should go in the FAQ for maintainers

[austinlparker]

Should we talk about the project itself using LLM tooling? For example, on opentelemetry-collector-releases we have been testing dosu (see example here: open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-releases#701 (comment))

I guess if we want to cover this it should go in the FAQ for maintainers

I added a new section to the FAQ addressing Dosu and other LLM-based tooling.

[mx-psi]

Content LGTM, but it looks like the .cspell.yaml change triggered some autoformat on your code editor, we could split that into a separate PR

[breedx-splk]

Thanks @austinlparker, I hope this helps reduce some of the LLM thrash. Do you think there's an opportunity to link to this from the code-of-conduct.md as well? Seems like it might be valuable to somehow indicate that repeated, lazy LLM-based submissions can constitute a conduct violation.

[austinlparker]

Thanks @austinlparker, I hope this helps reduce some of the LLM thrash. Do you think there's an opportunity to link to this from the code-of-conduct.md as well? Seems like it might be valuable to somehow indicate that repeated, lazy LLM-based submissions can constitute a conduct violation.

@open-telemetry/governance-committee thoughts on explicit CoC expansion?

[mtwo]

Seems fine with me. Our CoC inherits from the CNCF CoC, correct? If so, would we propose those changes upstream?

[austinlparker]

Seems fine with me. Our CoC inherits from the CNCF CoC, correct? If so, would we propose those changes upstream?

It does. I'm not sure we really need to specifically add this as a CoC violation, as repeated violations of a published policy would be a violation of the 'positive environment' section of the CoC (see https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md#our-standards).

[danielgblanco]

Thanks for putting this together

[yurishkuro]

I just re-read the guidance and my suggestion is to rewrite it without referencing LLMs. The overall guidance boils down to "don't create garbage/useless PRs", and "if you do we will block you". If a PR is high quality then it's irrelevant if it's created with GenAI help or not. We can expect most PRs to be done with AI assistance in the near future, so the guidance to "disclose that fact" serves no purpose.

[svrnm]

@yurishkuro can you move your comment into a dedicated issue so we can continue the discussion there? Thanks

[yurishkuro]

#2435