Hi all,
+1 as well > - LLMs may only be used as an improved auto-completion mechanism, or > for repeated tasks (mechanical refactoring) that could potentially be > completed with a deterministic algorithm. Shall we not also allow AI when it's used as a chatbot to answer specific/technical questions. I also seen contributors using it to identify where and how to fix an issue. I've never tried it myself and don't know if it's something that actually work. Would it be allowed ? Regards, Julien > Hi lists, > > Following recent discussions and conflict within the PostGIS community, I > would like us to consider tightening our AI submission policy to > hopefully avoid similar conflict arising in our community. > > I would propose that we move away from our current (quite permissive) "human > in the loop" policy (see > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/blob/master/qep-408-ai-tool-policy.md > ) to something more restrictive, such as what > the GDAL project has done. See > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/33399bf734f48a6727050ccd13a43575d43f6bf4/doc/source/community/ai_tool_policy.rst). > > In short, GDAL's policy is: > > Contributors can make limited use of LLMs for contributions in GDAL, subject > to details mentioned below: > > - Human contributors must be the primary author(s) of GDAL contributions > - All contributions including code, ticket comments, and commit messages > should be fully understood by the author(s) submitting them to the project. > - Submission of vibe-coded contributions is banned. > - LLMs may only be used as an improved auto-completion mechanism, or for > repeated tasks (mechanical refactoring) that could potentially be completed > with a deterministic algorithm. > - Human-coordinated or uncoordinated (OpenClaw, etc) use of agents for > submission of contributions to the GDAL repository is banned. > - Any LLM usage must be indicated by ticket label, comment, or commit message > indication and account for what was written by whom/what. > - The contributing human author is ultimately responsible for every line of > code, comment, or mailing list interaction they initiate, and all of it is > subject to > the project's :ref:`code_of_conduct`. > - The typical high verbosity of LLM code and text is actively discouraged. > More code is more code to maintain. High verbosity contribution (tickets, > code, > messages, etc) will be seen as indication of LLM-generated content when not > labeled otherwise and may be ignored, closed, left unmerged, or removed at > maintainers' discretion. > > I personally think a combination of GDAL policy + borrowing the "contribute > only what you understand" term from Godot's current policy (see > https://contributing.godotengine.org/en/latest/pull_requests/pull_request_guidelines.html#ai-assisted-contributions > could be a good step > forward. Specifically this clause: > > Contribute only what you understand > Only submit code that you fully understand and are prepared to explain to a > maintainer. This especially applies if you implement the idea of another > person, copy code from elsewhere, or if you use AI to assist you with your > contribution. In all of these cases, you must disclose which part of your > submission > wasn't fully authored by you. > > Thoughts? > > Nyall > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer -- Julien Cabieces Senior Developer at Oslandia [email protected] _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
