LLM policy

[Greg Troxel]

Sandro Santilli <strk at kbt.io> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 05:10:51PM +0400, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>
>> I believe AIs are covered by existing diversity statement of code of conduct:
>> https://postgis.net/community/conduct/#diversity-statement
>
> I agree on not defining a policy about which tools you can use to
> contribute to PostGIS.

It's not really about "tools you can use", but about input without
proper licensing (models trained on stolen code), and about overly
verbose input that is particularly hard to review because of an
established pattern of subtle errors while seeming plausible.

> We need to be always careful about what we merge, and if it's too
> difficult to review a contribution, we should not feel pressured to
> accept it.

Under that, the response to most LLM contributions should be to reject
them as too verbose, unless they are as tightly written as accepted
human-authored contributions.  And, to reject contributions that have a
hint of not being understand by the human submitter as well as one that
was constructed without LLM.  This is not quite a ban, but in practice
it's pretty close.

> Shall communication become too verbose we'll see how to approach that
> problem, maybe we're not affected because there aren't many Coding Agents
> capable of filing Trac tickets ;)

The problematic merge request I saw was filed by a human but the code
changes were generated by an LLM.


I suggest looking over the gdal-dev list and Even's comments after
trying to deal with LLM inputs.


But indeed, good humor about Trac.