AI must not make the final determination on whether a contribution is accepted or not.”
Why not though? If we design a system and it is sufficiently successful why would we want Fedora to lag behind RHEL or even CentOS Stream for example where no such policies exist.
Note, that’s different than saying “let’s just accept whatever AI says”. But if someone builds a system that is proven to be 99.999% correct in its contributions, why bother making a policy against it? Is this a concern with ethics or quality? If its quality, that’s a technical issue that I don’t think we need a policy for. What about for testing mass rebuilds? Banned for simple docs bumps? A ban of this kind seems to step away from Fedora’s “first” policies without even having done the experiment to see what it would look like today.
At a bare minimum I’d like to see Fedora get in front of RHEL again with a more aggressive approach to AI. Not just in how we build Fedora but formally opening the doors to AI contributors and data scientist so that Fedora is their first stop shop. I’d hate to see a scenario where Fedora’s policies make it a less attractive innovation engine than even CentOS Stream :-/