From j1 at jimenezshaw.com  Thu Oct 15 10:45:23 2026
From: j1 at jimenezshaw.com (Javier Jimenez Shaw)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 19:45:23 +0200
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
Message-ID: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Recently there has been a relative explosion of PRs (and issues) in PROJ. I
would say that many of them were LLM generated, by people (well, probably
not people) that do not know the project, do not care about it, and very
likely do not have any connection with it. Just to get some "points" as
contributors I guess.
I don't want to know how much energy and tokens they burned for such PRs
and issues.
You can go to the repository and have your own opinion.

I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html

I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another step.
https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912

Cheers
Javier.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20261015/83c7ca35/attachment.htm>

From gdt at lexort.com  Thu Oct 15 15:07:28 2026
From: gdt at lexort.com (Greg Troxel)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 18:07:28 -0400
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
 (Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ's message of "Thu, 15 Oct 2026 19:45:23
 +0200")
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <rmiy0bybotb.fsf@s1.lexort.com>

Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <proj at lists.osgeo.org> writes:

> I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
> https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>
> I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another step.
> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912

A key issue is enabling those with commit access to just close issues
and PRs that violate the policy.  I see a bunch of issues that admit
they are "automatically generated" and they are tagged as violating the
existing policy.  But they are still open.   People feel that they have
to be polite to "new contributors" even when the contributor is either
an agent or willfully violating.

I think it's good to just copy gdal.   Partly because that was already
argued and is sensible, but policies are like licenses -- the fewer the
better and if proj wants something close, and "snap to existing policy
point in the vast space" does not hurt, it makes things easier for all.

a cranky human perspective from gdt

From nyall.dawson at gmail.com  Thu Oct 15 15:24:17 2026
From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:24:17 +1000
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB28AsjAYOjrYmKc1RDfCCig3qc6YJb-waZxa6aUE+4zgYJ2Uw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026, 3:45?am Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ, <
proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
> https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>

Thanks for taking this on, and for taking this initiative!

My 2c is that the gdal policy isn't restrictive enough. The gdal community
is still hurting and maybe on life support now.

I'd argue for a more restrictive policy to begin with , with the potential
for loosening this down the track if desired. (For reference, qgis is
currently strictly "no AI", with the onus on interested parties to argue
the case for loosening this policy).

Nyall


> I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another
> step.
> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912
>
> Cheers
> Javier.
> _______________________________________________
> PROJ mailing list
> PROJ at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20261016/b1cb1e31/attachment.htm>

From mwtoews at gmail.com  Thu Oct 15 19:52:23 2026
From: mwtoews at gmail.com (Mike Taves)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:52:23 +1300
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <CAB28AsjAYOjrYmKc1RDfCCig3qc6YJb-waZxa6aUE+4zgYJ2Uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB28AsjAYOjrYmKc1RDfCCig3qc6YJb-waZxa6aUE+4zgYJ2Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM2FmMqrywbL+YkaQkByTB2CO5yTYHq5vVdU7JfE0jsSsG5zRw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the email list communication (a forum still absent of AI abuse).

GitHub users will have noticed a significant increase of LLM-gen-AI
content across many highly visible projects. This is obviously a
problem, and is unsustainable in the long run.

This seems to be related to GitHub. Read more down the rabbit hole
here https://giveupgithub.org

There are alternative code hosting systems, such as codeberg.org which
in contrast to GitHub has a transparent and democratic organisational
structure, which have recently voted to prohibit LLM-extrusions in
their terms of use
https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html

Or there is an existing OSGeo Gitea resource: https://gitea.osgeo.org
which already mirrors several repos, like QGIS and GEOS (but not
PROJ).

From kristian at evers.dev  Fri Oct 16 01:57:04 2026
From: kristian at evers.dev (Kristian Evers)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:57:04 +0000
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5F3338BE-796D-4B46-B7D8-7B64780189AA@evers.dev>

Thanks for starting this discussion, Javier! I think everyone that follows the activity on GitHub will have been overwhelmed by recent activity. I certainly have. It?s? clear to me that we need to change something but it is not clear to me what the best way forward is. Having given the topic some though over the last week I think my priorities are as follows:

* Community building
* Human interactions
* Avoiding maintainer burnout
* Producing a useful software package

At the moment we are struggling in the three first bullets. In particular regarding human interaction. There are quite a few cases where you can rightfully doubt if a human was even involved at all. Really discouraging. The influx of new dubious contributors is driving maintainer burnout at the moment and is not doing wonders for the community either. That said, access to LLM tools has also lowered the barrier for entry[0] to our community which can be seen in the increased number of contributions in the cartographic parts of PROJ. An area that hasn't seen much focus over the last few years. The LLMs are helping bridge the gap between web-based cartography and our ancient ways of C and C++. I think it is fantastic to see some of the innovation in the Javascript-space find its way into PROJ but it is not worth anything if it causes the regular maintainers to burn out.

I can agree to adopt the GDAL policy but I don?t think it will fix everything. I expect we will end up spending quite some time policing the policy and new contributors trying to circumvent it. Probably that?s better than doing nothing but still not particularly fun.

Let?s finish this debate at the policy first and once that is settled I would like to propose a few extra ideas on how to avoid bot accounts and increasing community engagement. Stay tuned.

/Kristian

[0] Two-edged sword, I know.

> On 15 Oct 2026, at 19.45, Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Recently there has been a relative explosion of PRs (and issues) in PROJ. I would say that many of them were LLM generated, by people (well, probably not people) that do not know the project, do not care about it, and very likely do not have any connection with it. Just to get some "points" as contributors I guess.
> I don't want to know how much energy and tokens they burned for such PRs and issues.
> You can go to the repository and have your own opinion.
>
> I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
> https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>
> I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another step.
> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912
>
> Cheers
> Javier.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20261016/fd320a32/attachment-0001.htm>

From j1 at jimenezshaw.com  Sun Oct 18 07:55:17 2026
From: j1 at jimenezshaw.com (Javier Jimenez Shaw)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 16:55:17 +0200
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <5F3338BE-796D-4B46-B7D8-7B64780189AA@evers.dev>
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F3338BE-796D-4B46-B7D8-7B64780189AA@evers.dev>
Message-ID: <CADRrdKvK0WEcNphW9mEDAuodxhdmsffwKm+v2X5uD4btH9zcQg@mail.gmail.com>

Let's vote

I start with my +1
Javier

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026, 10:57 Kristian Evers, <kristian at evers.dev> wrote:

> Thanks for starting this discussion, Javier! I think everyone that follows
> the activity on GitHub will have been overwhelmed by recent activity. I
> certainly have. It?s? clear to me that we need to change something but it
> is not clear to me what the best way forward is. Having given the topic
> some though over the last week I think my priorities are as follows:
>
> * Community building
> * Human interactions
> * Avoiding maintainer burnout
> * Producing a useful software package
>
> At the moment we are struggling in the three first bullets. In particular
> regarding human interaction. There are quite a few cases where you can
> rightfully doubt if a human was even involved at all. Really discouraging.
> The influx of new dubious contributors is driving maintainer burnout at the
> moment and is not doing wonders for the community either. That said, access
> to LLM tools has also lowered the barrier for entry[0] to our community
> which can be seen in the increased number of contributions in the
> cartographic parts of PROJ. An area that hasn't seen much focus over the
> last few years. The LLMs are helping bridge the gap between web-based
> cartography and our ancient ways of C and C++. I think it is fantastic to
> see some of the innovation in the Javascript-space find its way into PROJ
> but it is not worth anything if it causes the regular maintainers to burn
> out.
>
> I can agree to adopt the GDAL policy but I don?t think it will fix
> everything. I expect we will end up spending quite some time policing the
> policy and new contributors trying to circumvent it. Probably that?s better
> than doing nothing but still not particularly fun.
>
> Let?s finish this debate at the policy first and once that is settled I
> would like to propose a few extra ideas on how to avoid bot accounts and
> increasing community engagement. Stay tuned.
>
> /Kristian
>
>
> [0] Two-edged sword, I know.
>
> On 15 Oct 2026, at 19.45, Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <
> proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Recently there has been a relative explosion of PRs (and issues) in PROJ.
> I would say that many of them were LLM generated, by people (well, probably
> not people) that do not know the project, do not care about it, and very
> likely do not have any connection with it. Just to get some "points" as
> contributors I guess.
> I don't want to know how much energy and tokens they burned for such PRs
> and issues.
> You can go to the repository and have your own opinion.
>
> I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
> https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>
> I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another
> step.
> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912
>
> Cheers
> Javier.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20261018/74263c96/attachment.htm>

From schwehr at gmail.com  Sun Oct 18 11:02:45 2026
From: schwehr at gmail.com (Kurt Schwehr)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:02:45 -0700
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <CADRrdKvK0WEcNphW9mEDAuodxhdmsffwKm+v2X5uD4btH9zcQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F3338BE-796D-4B46-B7D8-7B64780189AA@evers.dev>
 <CADRrdKvK0WEcNphW9mEDAuodxhdmsffwKm+v2X5uD4btH9zcQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACmBxyt3P5szsVhzT8AhAwMZJ17qw3-0e3YH-WX4EfEHRJwvcw@mail.gmail.com>

Javier,

What exactly are you voting on?

For those not keeping up, please also see this discussion:

https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2026-October/061758.html

I personally think both PROJ and GDAL need detailed AGENTS.md files to help
control the situation and to let AI review tools better help all who use
LLM agents in any part of their workflow.

-Kurt


On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 7:55?AM Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <
proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Let's vote
>
> I start with my +1
> Javier
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026, 10:57 Kristian Evers, <kristian at evers.dev> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Javier! I think everyone that
>> follows the activity on GitHub will have been overwhelmed by recent
>> activity. I certainly have. It?s? clear to me that we need to change
>> something but it is not clear to me what the best way forward is. Having
>> given the topic some though over the last week I think my priorities are as
>> follows:
>>
>> * Community building
>> * Human interactions
>> * Avoiding maintainer burnout
>> * Producing a useful software package
>>
>> At the moment we are struggling in the three first bullets. In particular
>> regarding human interaction. There are quite a few cases where you can
>> rightfully doubt if a human was even involved at all. Really discouraging.
>> The influx of new dubious contributors is driving maintainer burnout at the
>> moment and is not doing wonders for the community either. That said, access
>> to LLM tools has also lowered the barrier for entry[0] to our community
>> which can be seen in the increased number of contributions in the
>> cartographic parts of PROJ. An area that hasn't seen much focus over the
>> last few years. The LLMs are helping bridge the gap between web-based
>> cartography and our ancient ways of C and C++. I think it is fantastic to
>> see some of the innovation in the Javascript-space find its way into PROJ
>> but it is not worth anything if it causes the regular maintainers to burn
>> out.
>>
>> I can agree to adopt the GDAL policy but I don?t think it will fix
>> everything. I expect we will end up spending quite some time policing the
>> policy and new contributors trying to circumvent it. Probably that?s better
>> than doing nothing but still not particularly fun.
>>
>> Let?s finish this debate at the policy first and once that is settled I
>> would like to propose a few extra ideas on how to avoid bot accounts and
>> increasing community engagement. Stay tuned.
>>
>> /Kristian
>>
>>
>> [0] Two-edged sword, I know.
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2026, at 19.45, Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <
>> proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Recently there has been a relative explosion of PRs (and issues) in PROJ.
>> I would say that many of them were LLM generated, by people (well, probably
>> not people) that do not know the project, do not care about it, and very
>> likely do not have any connection with it. Just to get some "points" as
>> contributors I guess.
>> I don't want to know how much energy and tokens they burned for such PRs
>> and issues.
>> You can go to the repository and have your own opinion.
>>
>> I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
>> https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>>
>> I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another
>> step.
>> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912
>>
>> Cheers
>> Javier.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> PROJ mailing list
> PROJ at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20261018/e9cea7d5/attachment.htm>

From j1 at jimenezshaw.com  Sun Oct 18 11:16:20 2026
From: j1 at jimenezshaw.com (Javier Jimenez Shaw)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 20:16:20 +0200
Subject: [PROJ] More restrictive LLM policy - like in GDAL
In-Reply-To: <CACmBxyt3P5szsVhzT8AhAwMZJ17qw3-0e3YH-WX4EfEHRJwvcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADRrdKvpOTcfbU9gcFeBnRA-vYXhNzYEQDCFb20PMS91pPhfwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5F3338BE-796D-4B46-B7D8-7B64780189AA@evers.dev>
 <CADRrdKvK0WEcNphW9mEDAuodxhdmsffwKm+v2X5uD4btH9zcQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACmBxyt3P5szsVhzT8AhAwMZJ17qw3-0e3YH-WX4EfEHRJwvcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADRrdKtWJxG8u9vWxoH__KsstnXjVFx64UZVqwuaEqKU7dTR1g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kurt

Sorry, it could not be clear enough.
This voting is about this PR
https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912
to change the AI policy in PROJ.

I found it an easy step to start with it PROJ.

The initiative by Nyall to change the GDAL terms was happening as a
consequence of my first email (if I understood correctly. I didn't know
Nyall was in this mailing list!)

Of course, changing today PROJ conditions doesn't mean we can't change them
again tomorrow.

Javier.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2026, 20:03 Kurt Schwehr, <schwehr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Javier,
>
> What exactly are you voting on?
>
> For those not keeping up, please also see this discussion:
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2026-October/061758.html
>
> I personally think both PROJ and GDAL need detailed AGENTS.md files to
> help control the situation and to let AI review tools better help all who
> use LLM agents in any part of their workflow.
>
> -Kurt
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 7:55?AM Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <
> proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> Let's vote
>>
>> I start with my +1
>> Javier
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026, 10:57 Kristian Evers, <kristian at evers.dev> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Javier! I think everyone that
>>> follows the activity on GitHub will have been overwhelmed by recent
>>> activity. I certainly have. It?s? clear to me that we need to change
>>> something but it is not clear to me what the best way forward is. Having
>>> given the topic some though over the last week I think my priorities are as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> * Community building
>>> * Human interactions
>>> * Avoiding maintainer burnout
>>> * Producing a useful software package
>>>
>>> At the moment we are struggling in the three first bullets. In
>>> particular regarding human interaction. There are quite a few cases where
>>> you can rightfully doubt if a human was even involved at all. Really
>>> discouraging. The influx of new dubious contributors is driving maintainer
>>> burnout at the moment and is not doing wonders for the community either.
>>> That said, access to LLM tools has also lowered the barrier for entry[0] to
>>> our community which can be seen in the increased number of contributions in
>>> the cartographic parts of PROJ. An area that hasn't seen much focus over
>>> the last few years. The LLMs are helping bridge the gap between web-based
>>> cartography and our ancient ways of C and C++. I think it is fantastic to
>>> see some of the innovation in the Javascript-space find its way into PROJ
>>> but it is not worth anything if it causes the regular maintainers to burn
>>> out.
>>>
>>> I can agree to adopt the GDAL policy but I don?t think it will fix
>>> everything. I expect we will end up spending quite some time policing the
>>> policy and new contributors trying to circumvent it. Probably that?s better
>>> than doing nothing but still not particularly fun.
>>>
>>> Let?s finish this debate at the policy first and once that is settled I
>>> would like to propose a few extra ideas on how to avoid bot accounts and
>>> increasing community engagement. Stay tuned.
>>>
>>> /Kristian
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] Two-edged sword, I know.
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2026, at 19.45, Javier Jimenez Shaw via PROJ <
>>> proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Recently there has been a relative explosion of PRs (and issues) in
>>> PROJ. I would say that many of them were LLM generated, by people (well,
>>> probably not people) that do not know the project, do not care about it,
>>> and very likely do not have any connection with it. Just to get some
>>> "points" as contributors I guess.
>>> I don't want to know how much energy and tokens they burned for such PRs
>>> and issues.
>>> You can go to the repository and have your own opinion.
>>>
>>> I created this PR that is a copy of the GDAL AI policy:
>>> https://gdal.org/en/stable/community/ai_tool_policy.html
>>>
>>> I don't know if it will keep slope code out of PROJ, but it is another
>>> step.
>>> https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4912
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Javier.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> PROJ mailing list
>> PROJ at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20261018/732a1021/attachment-0001.htm>