Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Browse archives

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Stuart J Mackintosh

- 26/09/2025 08:38:04

Following up and to take a look at how others have dealt with these matters, I noticed Fedora released an AI policy yesterday so I have briefly summarised (perplexity) this compared with a bunch of other policies, full analysis here: https://codimd.mackintosh.me/s/ifsByh-G8#

Brief overview of policies:

- The main goal is to blend innovation with strong safeguards—using AI tools to help, but keeping people fully responsible for results.
- Most projects see transparency as crucial for maintaining trust and enabling fair review and collaboration.
- Quality control and copyright protection are prioritized: automation should not dilute standards nor introduce legal risk.
- Some policies are stricter, fully banning AI output unless human-vetted and legally certified.
- Clause implementation mostly revolves around commit messages, contributor guidelines, and reviewed workflow steps—simple, actionable, easy to follow.

This format ensures contributors know where, when, and how AI use is welcomed—and where human effort and discretion are absolutely required.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 11:01, Stuart J Mackintosh wrote:

I propose that you address these points through the mechanism proposed by Daniel - responsible use, and behavioural guidance alongside a code of conduct which can determine obligations such as disclosure of AI use; Ai is just one of a set of issues that must be addressed.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 10:47, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc