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

[Tim Sutton]

Hi Nyall and friends

Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this thread. I wanted
to share the PSC member perspective here. I think our job is to get out of
your (developers, contributors) way and try to make sure nothing gets in
your way. If that includes banning AI / LLM use in
https://github.com/qgis/qgis we are fine with that. I think we have had
ample time to debate the issue in various email threads and on the internet
at large and we can bring this into a project policy. Could we just take
Stefanos' comment (
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/67509#issuecomment-5772186522) as a good
summary of how we should deal with this and put it through the processes we
have set up to create policies. Personally,  I would prefer we remove any
derisive language or easter eggs like mentioned above in the
CONTRIBUTING.md and just keep it clean and tidy. Our proposed way forward
would be:


1. Define a clear policy that establishes the scope of what is allowed: "No
LLM assisted code contributions are allowed in the
https://github.com/qgis/qgis repository. We know this is difficult to
enforce, but if we subsequently discover that you have used and LLM for
your contribution, you risk code reversion and contributor rights
sanctioning."
2. Post this in our CONTRIBUTING.md and wire it into incoming PRs if you
can figure out how to do that.  Perhaps it is time to establish a CLA
workflow that requires signing before any PRs are accepted. I suggest we
use a modified version of the OSGEO CLA to add any clauses you think are
appropriate in nice clear, neutral language. See e.g.
https://gist.github.com/timlinux/cc20c0b8860648da977a261d46b170d4
3. Ideally this should go through the QEP process if you can survive the
vibe coding hordes for another two weeks. I would be happy to help write
the proposal if you like.

In the QEP and CLA / Policy I would not put any rationale as to why we have
the policy as that takes us down a rabbit hole of people arguing about
nuances when IMHO all we should care about is the "what". Similar to how we
don't explain why my arcane variable naming rules from 2003 persist, just
that they should be followed :-P

If you don't mind would you roll back the template change long enough for
use to lay down the policy through a QEP and then have at it in terms of
putting whatever tooling you need to reject LLM originated requests?

I am happy to jump in to help with QEP writing etc. if needed, just let me
know. Personally speaking, I know you and Even have expended a lot of
mental energy on LLM related discussions and I would really love to see us
provide an environment where it is simply a non-issue,we have clear
policies and you can get on with the stuff you (hopefully) love - building
the greatest GIS on planet earth!

Regards

Tim


(No LLM was used to compose this email)


On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 11:19 PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer <
qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Ok, I've submitted https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/67509 now. Can
> someone please approve and merge this?
>
> Then (someone motivated) can kick-start the follow up discussion and argue
> their case that LLM use *should* be allowed.
>
> Nyall
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Sept 2026 at 01:22, David Signer <david at opengis.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I think #1 to get time until we have a good solution for #2 won't hurt.
>> The QGIS project worked well before AI. I kind of miss the big argument for
>> why we need to use AI for QGIS immediately. I am not against using new
>> technology, but I think we risk nothing by proceeding with a careful
>> deliberation. Regarding #2 I am not a big fan of validating a new
>> contributor's credibility through financial donations, but with #1 we would
>> have time to find a good solution there.
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2026 at 8:28 PM Célia Buira via QGIS-Developer <
>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What about implementing #2 proof of life first, see the effect of this
>>> new policy on the github tracker, and only then implementing #1 if it's
>>> still needed ?
>>>
>>>
>>> About #2 I like the idea of the proof of life however requiring a
>>> financial contribution is rubbing me the wrong way. Contributing
>>> efficiently to the code of QGIS already required access to multiple
>>> thousands of dollars hardware, often you come to qgis after higher degrees
>>> of education which also adds inequality barriers. (I remember when I
>>> started to contribute to qgis it would take a whole night to do a clean
>>> build of qgis on my laptop at the time)
>>>
>>> I think we should go for something simpler as in require new contributor
>>> to screencast the end result of their PR and made them open the help >
>>> about this way we can also check they compiled with the last Sha commit of
>>> the PR.
>>>
>>>
>>> And for #1 My position is very much `wait and see`, I think it's too
>>> early to tell where the balance between social benefits and social costs of
>>> these tools will land in the end. And it would be too bad to remove a tool
>>> that could genuinely be useful in the future. In the last discussion
>>> Stefanos mentioned to allow contributor to use LLM once a certain threshold
>>> of PR is reached I think we should explore this too before straight up ban
>>> LLM
>>>
>>>
>>> And overall it sadden me that we collectively spent 3 decades writing
>>> free software, free tutorials etc... Effectively creating commons. And LLM
>>> companies took that from us, and make us pay twice. A first time at
>>> individual level to access this technology, and a second time by putting
>>> pressure on people and infrastructure.
>>>
>>> I would like to float another ideas around even if it would be hard to
>>> enforce in practice.
>>> *Force AI companies to give back*.
>>> Want to use Claude code? Sure but anthropic have to become a sustaining
>>> member of QGIS.org first
>>> Want to use codex, gemini? Then openAi and Google have to contribute to
>>> the project financially and I'm talking geniully multiple thousands dollars
>>> contributions.
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words we should enter collective bargaining between open source
>>> communities and AI companies with in mind the "polluter pays principle"
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Célia
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 16 sept. 2026 à 05:44, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer <
>>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>> > #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)
>>> >
>>> > Nyall
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > * because the web is broken in 2026. "simple" web searches don't work
>>> anymore.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>> > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>


-- 

Tim Sutton

*Kartoza Cofounder*Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee

*E *: tim at kartoza.com          *W* : kartoza.com



*This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you *
*have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete it from your system. Unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying*
*of the contents is prohibited.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20260923/2aed91a9/attachment-0001.htm>