Documenting and Evolving how we review jobs/contribution requests for OSD

[Erioldoesdesign]

For many years we've reviewed job postings with a fairly light-weight criteria: Is the project openly viewable as much as possible given the project type e.g. viewable code, license viewable, active contributor etc.

In the era of AI generated everything how can we evolve and adapt our 'review' criteria for our job postings to ensure that:

1. The project is OSS
2. The project is alive and sustainable
3. The project is equitable and not looking to exploit a designer

Other criteria for review can apply but i think we need some open discussion on how to evolve this review criteria here (i would open a discourse forum post but those are gated behind a discourse account, so i'm making this an issue!)

Thoughts and view and discussion welome in this issue.

@Erioldoesdesign will monitor and evaluate the discussion over some months in 2026 and look to resolve what is discussed by end of August 2026.

[jdittrich]

In the context of LLM code/content, I guess the negative to "alive and sustainable" would be one-shot generated projects that are not actively maintained, and the negative to "not beign equitable" and "exploitative" would be projects that want a designer to clean up LLM generated designs? (both negative definitions are less far reaching, but probably easier to apply in concrete cases or to refine the positive definitions)

[jdittrich]

• From conversation: "How would we respond to designers contributing/doing jobs or at least responding to job advertisements via LLMs"
• It might be valid to build a community based on a first AI contribution and collect people to collaborate around it.