[QGIS-Developer] Two proposals -- moratorium on LLM use, and requiring a "proof of life" for contributors

[Vincent Picavet]

Hello,

On 16/09/2026 05:44, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> #1. Place an immediate, total moratorium on all forms of LLM based
> contributions.
>
> We've tried gentle policies regarding this up till now, but clearly
> that's not helping. So I would like to propose a complete and total
> moratorium on any form of contribution assisted in any way (beyond as
> a replacement for a simple web search*).
>
> I think we should introduce a firm policy ASAP as a step toward
> repairing our community, and only after this could we start
> discussions about what form of LLM contribution may be acceptable.
>
> I.e. RIGHT NOW we default to a safe "NO AI" policy, and potentially
> later loosen this, rather than having a loose policy right now that
> maybe we'll correct in future.

Not surprising from my part, but a big +1 to this.

> #2. Require a "proof of life" from all new contributors
>
> The above policy only really applies to existing contributors who we
> know and trust. Any policy we introduce will just be totally ignored
> or lied about by bots or karma farming AI sloppers. I've been
> wondering how to handle this. I've been thinking some form of "proof
> that you are a human and who you actually are" could be required, as
> some kind of document submitted to PSC for private/secure storage. But
> realistically, that's impossible in 2026, as any form of ID document
> could be forged in a few seconds, and it's clearly not possible for
> QGIS.org to police.
>
> So I'd propose that new contributors must FIRST make a financial
> donation to the QGIS project, before any contributions from that
> person are accepted in any form. This could be a small amount, just
> enough to deter the karma farmers who don't actually care about the
> project and what they're contributing. And any amount would be
> sufficient to block the bots.
>
> (Another solution could be to require a face-to-face, in person
> meeting with a contributor before they can submit changes)
>
> What do you all think? I believe we need to act immediately on #1. (I
> realise #2 may be more tricky and/or controversial)

The highest value an opensource community owns and provides is trust.

I am therefore in favor of measures enforcing trust. However, I think your proposal would need some more thought, as it may have unpleasant consequences, and it raises the barrier to entry to the project a lot.

There may be some other methods we could use to lower the amount of sloppers interested in our project.

That would be a -0 from my side, and I propose to give time to think about it more carefully and try to identify the best solutions to keep the community a trustful one.

Best regards,

Vincent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20260916/68a446ca/attachment.htm>