On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 2:07 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry@openinfra.dev> wrote:

Thanks for looping me in, Julia.

It's definitely on our radar. It is a fast-changing legal landscape, and
while the ASF can be praised for issuing early guidelines, most of their
guidance is pretty open-ended right now, and is meant more as a living
document that is going to evolve.

I actually participate in the Open Source Initiative new webinar series
on defining open source AI, and will be exploring the effects of the
introduction of AI on openly-developed open source together with Davanum
Srinivas (AWS, long time contributor to Apache projects, OpenStack and
Kubernetes) and Diane Mueller (now at Bitergia). The effects of
generative AI on code contributions will be a key part of the
discussion. It will happen on Wednesday at 16:00 UTC / 11am CT:

https://deepdiveai.sessionize.com/session/526792

Thanks all,

@Thierry: Excellent, thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to attend your webinar on Wednesday, looking forward to hearing the views of such an eminent panel. 

@Julia: Agreed that a board working group session would be a useful starting point. Would setting that WG up be a topic for the November board meeting agenda, or something we could spin up in advance of that?

Cheers,

Eoghan

 

Thierry

Julia Kreger wrote:
> Greetings Eoghan!
>
> I wholeheartedly agree, this is worthwhile to get on everyone's radar.
>
> As far as I'm aware, this topic has not come up before in the OpenInfra
> community, but we are a wide and diverse community. I do concur that
> this would fall into the scope of the board, in large part because we
> maintain authority over licenses and the acceptable copyrights. And as
> you've pointed out, this can quickly result in needing to dive into the
> license agreements and assignments which members commit to.
>
> Realistically, I think if we opted to permit AI generated code content,
> the content would still need to be denoted in the code itself under
> current USPTO guidelines, because the code in a single commit would then
> have two different sets of rules applying to it. One for the AI
> generated portion, and separately a human's influence over it. That
> being said, that is only my mildly caffeinated impression after doing
> some additional reading.
>
> I think a working group session may be a good starting place to collect
> thoughts from the board members. Meanwhile, I've added Thierry to the
> discussion because this might be something already on the staff's radar.
>
> -Julia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:16 AM Eoghan Glynn <eglynn@redhat.com
> <mailto:eglynn@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Thanks Julia,
>
>     Not necessarily a reason on its own to justify an October meeting,
>     but one that we might consider getting on our radar before the end
>     of the year if it's not already being discussed in other Open Infra
>     forums ...
>
>     After reading a recent ASF blog
>     <https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/asf-legal-committee-issues-generative-ai-guidance-to-contributors> announcement, I asked the Red Hat team yesterday if anyone knew if there's an Open Infra equivalent for the Apache guidance <https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html> on using generative AI for code contributions.
>
>     I also asked if this topic would naturally fall into the domain of
>     the [OpenStack] TC to discuss and craft a policy.
>
>     The response I got was it felt more like a topic for discussion at
>     the Foundation Board level, since it likely touches on the CLA and
>     may require legal insight.
>
>     So a future Board discussion could be warranted on what type
>     generated content we're comfortable with (if any) and whether it
>     would make sense to encourage or even require disclosure of any such
>     tool usage in the commit message.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Eoghan
>
>     On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:58 PM Julia Kreger
>     <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com <mailto:juliaashleykreger@gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>         Greetings Directors,
>
>         This morning Allison Randall and I met with the foundation
>         executive staff to identify core topics from the staff to turn
>         into an agenda for our upcoming meeting. Unfortunately, we
>         determined that we would not have any items ready for the board
>         for this upcoming meeting. The plus is that we can cancel the
>         October 3rd meeting if we have no other business to attend to.
>         The down side is our November meeting is likely going to have a
>         number of topics to cover.
>
>         As such, if anyone has any topics which need to be discussed and
>         addressed during the scheduled meeting on October 3rd, please
>         let me know before 9 AM Friday morning US-Pacific (4 PM UTC). If
>         I receive no topics by that time, I will cancel the October
>         meeting of the board, and we will meet next during our scheduled
>         November meeting.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         -Julia
>         _______________________________________________
>         Foundation-board mailing list
>         Foundation-board@lists.openinfra.dev
>         <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openinfra.dev>