Adding initial commit of the ASWF Development Philosophy#1356
Adding initial commit of the ASWF Development Philosophy#1356carolalynn wants to merge 1 commit intoAcademySoftwareFoundation:mainfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Carol Payne <carol.alynn.payne@gmail.com>
|
|
||
| # Disclosure | ||
|
|
||
| Another aspect of author responsibility is disclosure. It has long been a best practice to disclose the process, inspiration, and research used in your code submission. In the same way, we now require disclosure of tools used, including agentic coding solutions and AI. This can be as simple as “this PR was assisted by X tool to aid in Y and Z”. Maintainers might ask follow up questions, and as noted above, authors should be prepared to defend their solutions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really think that we should follow in the footsteps of the Linux Kernel and many other projects of having a specific tool disclosure format of:
Assisted-by: Tool / Model
They can, of course, provide more details in the prose of the PR.
Having a standard format that can easily be searched for or recognized is going to greatly aid future efforts to gather any kind of data across repos and projects.
| @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ | |||
| # ASWF Development Philosophy | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curious why you called this "development philosophy" when actually it's narrowly focused on how projects should interact with "AI" coding assistants or tooling. Should we title this more straightforwardly?
|
|
||
| If you’ve read this far and are thinking “wait, I still don’t know what their policy on AI generated code is” \- that’s technically correct. That is not the purpose of this document. That policy should be decided on a project level, and may change frequently \- just as technology does. While we may add more to this document over time, the basic philosophy should serve as a guiding and testing framework for policy in individual projects and contributors. However, here’s a quick summary: | ||
|
|
||
| * Humans are responsible for code contributions \- and they must be able to explain the work. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might want to also call out that they attest for the work, just to speak to the fact that if it comes out of an AI tool, the contributor is the one attesting they can contribute it.
|
|
||
| This document is being written in the “age of AI” \- a time when how we as software engineers write and interact with code is rapidly changing, and keeping track of these changes is a job in itself. However, the philosophies and best practices laid out in this document are nothing new. They are long-held beliefs and unspoken (read: obvious) parts of being good stewards of our craft, especially in the open source landscape. The decision to put them in writing is our attempt to be clear, forward-thinking thought leaders in our space, and for the Foundation to continue to be a place that developers, companies, and productions trust in their critical creative work. | ||
|
|
||
| We write this document in order to help our organization move forward with technology, and equip our maintainers and contributors with the tools and documentation they need to succeed. These policies, for now, focus on code and tooling. We have several projects within the Foundation whose outputs and/or inputs are non-code (assets, data sets, images) \- these may require separate policies and procedures that differ from AI-assisted code. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just as a small nit, I am seeing use of 'the Foundation' and 'ASWF' interchangibly here. It might make sense to align on using 'ASWF' in the document, and be clear that any assertions made (i.e. when something says "we" ) are by the ASWF TAC. Again - I'm probably being overly pedantic - but I do believe the clarity will reduce ambiguities.
|
|
||
| # Author Responsibility | ||
|
|
||
| The human submitting a pull request is considered the author and is fully responsible for the code they contribute. Our code contribution policy is quite clear \- you must sign the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) with a valid email address and name, and have completed the appropriate version of a Contributor License Agreement (if applicable) before your code will be reviewed and/or merged. By signing and posting a PR, you as the author are stating that the code you submit follows the licensing and authorship rules of the project, the ASWF, and the Linux Foundation. The PR author should understand, be able to converse around, and explain their submission. There is nothing new about this policy, and no exceptions will be made. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Our code contribution policy" -> "The code contribution and IP policies that ASWF hosted projects have adopted"
3 participants
Based on the google document reviewed by the TAC.