> Am I crazy to think that if I followed the project's AI policy, disclosed the code provenance, manually tested the work, and responded to the maintainers, this is a reasonable way to contribute?
Here's my ambivalent hot-take.
1. If any project wants to require that fix-activity involves humans (assisted or otherwise) who are somehow invested in the project and its longer-term health, that's their decision to make, and I can't even say they'd be wrong to do so.
2. ... But it'd still be a dick-move to ban a "drive-by fix" contributor when those expectations and goals are not a project consensus and not clearly communicated.
Here's my ambivalent hot-take.
1. If any project wants to require that fix-activity involves humans (assisted or otherwise) who are somehow invested in the project and its longer-term health, that's their decision to make, and I can't even say they'd be wrong to do so.
2. ... But it'd still be a dick-move to ban a "drive-by fix" contributor when those expectations and goals are not a project consensus and not clearly communicated.