docs: stating the results of community discussion in an ADR

[felipemontoya]

This PR adds ADR-0012, "API for AI extensions in Python code," which records the goals for exposing openedx-ai-extensions' AI capabilities as a supported Python surface.

It captures and organizes the direction that emerged from the Plugin-provided XBlock runtime services community discussion (https://discuss.openedx.org/t/plugin-provided-xblock-runtime-services/18682/8).

The ADR is deliberately marked Provisional: it commits to the goals so subsequent design and review can be measured against them, while leaving the concrete delivery mechanism open pending further community input.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @felipemontoya!

This repository is currently maintained by @felipemontoya.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.36%. Comparing base (351abc2) to head (48adf02).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #242   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.36%   95.36%           
=======================================
  Files          69       69           
  Lines        8088     8088           
  Branches      430      430           
=======================================
  Hits         7713     7713           
  Misses        281      281           
  Partials       94       94           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	95.36% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Henrrypg]

Nice scoping split between "what the API exposes" (A) and "how it's delivered" (B).

One thing worth flagging on Decision A:

A8 (analytics/xAPI wired in by default) — any opinion on operator opt-out for privacy/PII? A3 gives operators authority over model/prompt/on-off; seems analytics emission should fall under that same authority rather than being always-on.

Nothing to block the way of the PR, just asking.

[felipemontoya]

any opinion on operator opt-out for privacy/PII?

In fact they already have a lot of opt-out capabilities in aspects. The first being they could turn aspects completely off. But less drastically, they can allow different xAPI messages to be processed by aspects or completely ignored.

From the point of view of the AI extension framework, we only need to make sure that we can create properly formatted xAPI statements and put them in the pipeline. Operators can completely ignore them if they want.

[bradenmacdonald]

At a very high level, this sounds good to me. I won't have time to review it in detail for a while.

[felipemontoya]

Thanks @bradenmacdonald, having a high level agreement in the direction will be taking is a good step forward. I'll leave this PR open for a while gathering feedback.