governance: Add AI/LLM contribution policy

[jennings]

Checklist

If applicable:

• I have updated CHANGELOG.md
• I have updated the documentation (README.md, docs/, demos/)
• I have updated the config schema (cli/src/config-schema.json)
• I have added/updated tests to cover my changes
• I fully understand the code that I am submitting (what it does,
  how it works, how it's organized), including any code drafted by an LLM.
• For any prose generated by an LLM, I have proof-read and copy-edited with
  an eye towards deleting anything that is irrelevant, clarifying anything
  that is confusing, and adding details that are relevant. This includes,
  for example, commit descriptions, PR descriptions, and code comments.

[PhilipMetzger]

minor comment, also this should mention the AI policy issue

[nasamuffin]

I agree with the overall thrust of the policy. Had a couple phrasing nits here and there.

[josephlou5]

also this should mention the AI policy issue

#9219 I think?

[scott2000]

This looks great, thanks for doing this!

[PhilipMetzger]

This is a good start but imo incomplete.

[PhilipMetzger]

nit: I think this should be here and in a separate document, something like AI_POLICY which we then also add to the website.

[PhilipMetzger]

nit: This has currently no teeth, since it doesn't provide a way for the project to react to this beside commenting. If we want to have this as a policy there should be a way for core contributors and maintainers to effectively ban or close PRs which don't conform to this.

[jennings]

I'm glad to consider other opinions, but I made a conscious choice to omit that for now, because:

• I don't think anything's stopping us from closing a PR even if we don't mention that here.
• If we do close a PR citing the policy, the author saying, "But the policy doesn't say you'll close the PR" seems a pretty weak counter-argument to me.
• We're pretty low-touch in general, so I'd rather avoid creating an exact process until we need it

[PhilipMetzger]

I'm glad to consider other opinions, but I made a conscious choice to omit that for now, because:

• I don't think anything's stopping us from closing a PR even if we don't mention that here.
• If we do close a PR citing the policy, the author saying, "But the policy doesn't say you'll close the PR" seems a pretty weak counter-argument to me.
• We're pretty low-touch in general, so I'd rather avoid creating an exact process until we need it

In my opinion, a policy like this is not written against the current state of the project (and the still low-touch sentiment people have), its written for the future and any issue which comes along from the AI direction and for that we should empower people we trust to do the right thing.

I would like you to trust me on this since I the last few policies were written from me and that at a large personal cost.

• If we do close a PR citing the policy, the author saying, "But the policy doesn't say you'll close the PR" seems a pretty weak counter-argument to me.

And that's how you shouldn't do it (as in explicitly writing "we're going to close PRs and hide comments etc..."), but just encoding the right to act on it.

[senekor]

Stephens reasoning makes sense to me. If experience shows that enforcement isn't working, the policy can be adjusted.

I would like you to trust me on this since I the last few policies were written from me and that at a large personal cost.

"Trust me" isn't an argument. Decisions in open-source aren't made based on authority. And what's with the comment about personal cost? I can't see how that's relevant to the topic at hand.

[PhilipMetzger]

Also minor topic quibble, while this is a action of the "governance", it doesn't change GOVERNANCE.md so the governance: topic is pretty wrong. If anything this is a project-wide or meta-decision, so project: or meta: is more appropriate.