feat(docs): Adding the AI policy to the doc

docs/contributing.md

@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ The following figure might help you with an overview:
 
 ![Branching Strategy Graph](/img/branching_strategy.svg)
 
+You are expected to read, and follow, the [Rucio AI Policy](./developer/ai_policy.md) when
+contributing (Creating code, documentation, etc.) to the project.
+
 ## How can I Contribute
 
 ### 1. Prerequisite

docs/developer/ai_policy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+id: dev_ai_policy
+title: AI Policy
+---
+
+The key words "MAY", "MUST", "MUST NOT", and "SHOULD" in this document are to be interpreted as described
+in [RFC 2119](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119).
+
+# Motivation
+
+- We see an increased amount of contributions which are entirely generated, or at least assisted, by AI tools.
+- This policy aims to appeal to the contributors to understand the impact of usage of AI tools to the codebase,
+as well as to the wider project dynamics. This policy therefore establishes a framework on how we expect contributors
+to use AI tools responsibly.
+  - Impact to the codebase: Contributors **MUST** be able to demonstrate they understand the impact and justification
+for their changes within the codebase. While AI tools are helpful in complimenting a contributor's knowledge, they
+**MUST NOT** be used as a substitute for thoughtful contributions that improve the project. These types of changes
+require each change, line by line, to be understood.
+  - Impact to the community: Our developers community relies on a delicate web of trust between the contributors and
+reviewers. Reviewers invest their own time not only to ensure that the quality standards of the project are met, but
+also to educate contributors to in turn become more effective contributors or reviewers themselves. If reviewers feel
+that their effort is merely being used to "improve" the output of an AI tool, but not to have a long-lasting impact of
+improved returns, this web of trust crumbles. (Comprehension debt)
+  - Impact to the community: Wrongly used AI tools have the tendency to create lower quality, potentially faulty, code
+which creates an additional burden to the reviewers, as the code is harder to review. Thus an imbalance is created of
+faster generated, AI assisted, pull requests which require disproportionally more effort for review, which we already
+lack.
+
+# Policy
+
+1. You **MAY** use AI tools for contributing to Rucio, as long as you follow the principles described below.
+2. You **MUST** disclose the usage of AI tools. This includes any pull request to the codebase, as well as any type
+of communication in the project, such as documentation, github issues, answering support requests, etc.
+3. You **MUST** take full responsibility for your contributions. We expect all contributions, whether entirely human
+authored or assisted by AI tools, to meet the project's quality standards. This means, you **MUST** understand and
+be able to explain the details of all changes proposed in your pull request. Your primary aim of using AI tools
+**MUST** be to create better quality code, not to create code faster.
+4. Code review **MUST** be done by a human. You **MAY** use AI tools in addition to a full human review cycle.