I would welcome constructive feedback on it.
Agreed that it's too long. - Separate Principles from Policy. - The operational meat is right here: > Reviewer time is even more limited than contributor time, so we > expect you to have invested significantly more time in your > contribution than it will take to review. As well as writing > the payload itself (code, documentation, tests), we ask you to > invest time in making your contribution easy to review. It is > much easier to review an MR that has a clearly articulated goal > has a clearly explained design, often expressed in an overview > Note is illustrated with insightful examples has good test cases > In short, we expect you to have invested significant time in > your contribution before you ask others to invest their free > time to review and improve it. Lead with that. - The other key operational policy is the identifiable human author. If you want potential contributors to read the document, I suggest leading with those two policy items, then boiling the rest down to two bulleted lists: recommended and anti-recommended ways to use LLMs. I warmly endorse the principles, but they may belong elsewhere. Norman