> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 at 19:06, Julien Cabieces <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> 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 think we should, but maybe we don't need to explicitly state that?
Yes, we don't. But if we start to list all the things that are accepted (auto-completion, refactoring), we need to list this one too. I think it would be better to not list any accepted way of using LLM and stay with the "Don't vibe-code, Don't generate too verbose code, Understand every line you propose". Regards, Julien > It's unfortunate, but I've personally found that the web in 2026 is a > wasteland and search engines are basically useless for finding out > information anymore. Where once we could turn to stackexchange or blogs > (or even upstream documentation) there's just nothing out there anymore. So > realistically, I don't think we should block this. 😠> > Nyall > >> >> 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] -- 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
