comaps/Governance
23
43
Fork
You've already forked Governance
5

WIP: Introduce a doc about AI usage in the project #135

Closed
jeanbaptisteC wants to merge 1 commit from ai_usage into main
pull from: ai_usage
merge into: comaps:main
comaps:main
comaps:hbond-access
comaps:pastk-AI
comaps:20260116-mission
comaps:patepelo-spending
comaps:yannikbloscheck-structure
comaps:oleg-rswll-update-contributors-doc
comaps:oleg-rswll-governance-structure
comaps:zyphlar-patch-1
comaps:github_owner
comaps:oleg-rswll-word-update
comaps:oleg-rswll-patch-1
Contributor
Copy link

This PR introduce a doc about AI usage in differents projects of CoMaps
All feedback are appreciated

Text has been reviewed by reverso

Signed-off-by: Jean-Baptiste jeanbaptiste.charron@outlook.fr

This PR introduce a doc about AI usage in differents projects of CoMaps All feedback are appreciated Text has been reviewed by [reverso](https://www.reverso.net/) Signed-off-by: Jean-Baptiste <jeanbaptiste.charron@outlook.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jean-Baptiste <jeanbaptiste.charron@outlook.fr>

Thanks for getting this started @jeanbaptisteC!

I think in spirit this is very similar to the agreement that forgejo has adopted for their work, see forgejo/governance#325/

I wonder if it would be easiest to either just adopt their agreement in whole or make adaptations to it if we think it's useful?

My thinking is that the forgejo developers and community has put a lot of effort and discussion into coming up with this (see forgejo/discussions#366) and we could potentially benefit from their work? 🙂

Thanks for getting this started @jeanbaptisteC! I think in spirit this is very similar to the agreement that forgejo has adopted for their work, see https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/325/ I wonder if it would be easiest to either just adopt their agreement in whole or make adaptations to it if we think it's useful? My thinking is that the forgejo developers and community has put a lot of effort and discussion into coming up with this (see https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/366) and we could potentially benefit from their work? 🙂
Author
Contributor
Copy link

Yes, I agree this idea
I think we can add a mention to allow admins to close a PR or an issue if an user doesn't respect these rules

Yes, I agree this idea I think we can add a mention to allow admins to close a PR or an issue if an user doesn't respect these rules

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
comaps/Governance!135
Reference in a new issue
comaps/Governance
No description provided.
Delete branch "ai_usage"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?