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

[Nyall Dawson]

On Wed, 16 Sept 2026 at 21:18, David Koňařík <dvdkon at konarici.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I understand this proposal is part of a larger ongoing debate, of which
> I may have missed some parts, but I'd like to understand the context
> nonetheless. Hurt within the community sounds pretty serious, but I can
> only guess what you specifically mean by that.
>
> If this is about drive-by LLM contributions wasting maintainers' time,
> wouldn't your proposal #2 be enough? Or are existing contributors
> abusing LLMs too? Or is the problem something else entirely

Just quickly (cos it's late here, and I'm heading to bed!): there's a
lot of points being raised on many different channels (eg a lot on
mastodon). This is why I want to flip the current debate from "prove
why AI should be blocked" to "prove why AI should be ALLOWED". I would
like us to (immediately) shut the gates, and then start the (probably
lengthy) discussions on what is acceptable for the project. (And place
the burden of this debate on those who would like to use AI to argue
their case, instead of the other way around).

Nyall


?
>
> David Koňařík
>
> On Wed, 2026-09-16 at 13:44 +1000, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer
> wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > It's quite clear that there's considerable hurt and disappointment
> > within the QGIS developer community right now, and for very
> > understandable reasons.
> >
> > I've been giving this a lot of thought over the last few days, and
> > would like to propose two actions we could take that I think would
> > make a positive difference to our community.
> >
> > #1. Place an immediate, total moratorium on all forms of LLM based
> > contributions.
> > [...]
> >
> > #2. Require a "proof of life" from all new contributors
> > [...]
>
> > What do you all think? I believe we need to act immediately on #1. (I
> > realise #2 may be more tricky and/or controversial)
> >
> > Nyall