LLM policy

[Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski]

Hi,

I believe AIs are covered by existing diversity statement of code of
conduct:

https://postgis.net/community/conduct/#diversity-statement
> PostGIS welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. We are
committed to being a community that everyone feels good about joining, and
we will always work to treat everyone well. No matter how you identify
yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you.

I don't think it is limited to "humans only" (assume LLMs are humans with
brain prosthetics if you wish - there's still human beings behind them at
this point). I do not think there is a need for a deeper policy at this
time. AI code reviews, AI security reports by various vendors have also
been useful and strengthened PostGIS in the last couple years.

I've been to communities in the past where my non-british english got me
into the "not human enough" category so I would insist that measuring
humanness of contributors is not a good path to follow. A spambot is not
welcome because of spam, not because of bot.

For other projects avoiding AI/LLM: I believe most pain is coming from
under-documenting developer workflows and standards, thus gatekeeping from
newbie people (who give up) and AIs (who don't give up, but you may not
like where they end up without guidance). I continuously make sure PostGIS
contributions are newbie-friendly (thanks Regina for showing me that way)
and it seems that also makes AI agents' involvement natural and
non-annoying.

Thanks,
Darafei.


On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 2:16 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> A human recently told me to make this a new thread :-)
>
> Recently qgis and gdal have discussed and adopted policy about
> LLM-generated content in mostly PRs.
>
> After "human must be in control and really understand" was agreed to in
> gdal, somewhat (in my fuzzy view) as a compromise between the "just no"
> camps and those that were somewhat more welcoming, somewhat as an
> interim, a new policy of pretty much "just no" (except for fancy
> autocomplete by those with clue) was proposed and adopted.  Basic issues
> were limited human maintainer bandwidth, humans not being happy about
> interacting with machines, and code that looks very plausible but isn't
> quite right, in a way that's very hard to identify.
>
> qgis policy:
>
>
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/blob/master/qep-408-ai-tool-policy.md
>
> revised gdal policy, after a brief experiment with a policy like qgis's:
>
>   https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>
>
> My own experience was in seeing hamlib (not geo) get a vibe-coded PR
> while talking about policy, and I and several others reviewed it.  Both
> code and PR text were very wordy, in a way that wasn't helpful, and in
> the end we decided the PR was off base.  But it took a lot of time, it
> was hard to determine if it was right or not, and a (trained software
> engineer) human would have made much smaller changes and explained them
> far more concisely.  This experiment left me thinking that it wasn't ok
> to ask humans to review, read, or otherwise deal with LLM output.
>
> Thus, I favor the gdal approach.  I suspect that after a few vibe-coded
> PRs, those reviewing them will prefer that too.
>
> Regardless of how the consensus ends up, postgis should state the rules
> in CONTRIBUTING, and IMHO the rules should include up-front disclosure
> of *any* LLM use in making a contribution, beyond the human contributor
> gaining understanding.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20260609/b9360f60/attachment.htm>