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

[jack-berg]

I think it would be helpful to elaborate on this a bit. My 2 cents:

Time is a scarce resource. Thoughtful code reviews are very time consuming. There just isn't enough time to give proper responses to a flood of low-effort, low-quality contributions without compromising responsiveness to high-effort, high quality contributions. We need to prioritize the quality contributions to keep the ecosystem healthy.

No need to include this, but you're welcome to if any of it resonates. I'm approving as is.

[svrnm]

Approving as well, but +1 on this comment