<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Harrissou and all, </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Bien cordialement,
Régis Haubourg</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/04/2026 13:25, DelazJ via
QGIS-Developer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6DC49088-50F7-4293-9F35-3C8BA17D25E6@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Hi again,<br>
<br>
Nyall, I'm sorry to see that my message touched a nerve. Sorry.
I reread myself and am (un)fortunately unable to find what part
of my message triggers that:<br>
- the technical aspect of welcoming was about making sure we
provide correct and up-to-date materials e.g., it's regular that
the install.md file is outdated. It was in no way a call to open
doors for AI tools.<br>
- on the interaction part: I didn't mean we welcomed warmly any
AI-based (attempt of) contribution either. My point was to avoid
being unwelcoming with real potential contributors just because
they used AI, something the repo guidelines allow them to do. A
neutral label as Even updated it to seems a good start, and we
can imagine applying the "slop!" one to the PRs that reveal to
be of low-quality, allowing us to quickly close and ban the
authors after a number of recurrence.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The topic of open source future in AI's world worries a lot of
us. QGIS is both a professional tool, but also a passion for many
of us and I'm happy that emotions and feelings about AI mis-uses
impacts generate debates. Thanks all for keeping constructive and
peaceful like you do. That is why I love this community. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6DC49088-50F7-4293-9F35-3C8BA17D25E6@gmail.com">
<div dir="auto"><br>
Anyway, sorry for any misinterpretation my message would have
led to.<br>
<br>
<br>
Greg, there are two different things: people submitting
low-quality AI generated code (and these are problems we need to
solve quickly), and people understanding what they do and using
AI to help them polish the work. I personally probably don't
have skills to judge who belongs to which group but this could
be a first step of review; I'll leave that to others. My key
point as explained above is that, as long as we allow (for good
or bad reasons?) AI assisted PR, the second group does not
violate our rules, so we have to be welcoming with them. That's
all.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>One key point here. It is really **hard** to decrypt the quality
of LLM generated code, because it is trained to be plausible. </p>
<p> Knowing this, a friendly contributor, willing to getting
involved in the long term, and who will use AI as a helper for its
first contributions, should know that it will put a very high
charge on reviewers. So this is like a poisoned gift. </p>
<p>My personal view is that contributors should take care of showing
they are human, by describing their real motivations, plans for
the future. Any purely technical PR, launched from an anonymous
account, out of the blue, was already a not-so-good practice. In
AI era, this is a very bad practice and I agree this is already
"AI-slop". A presentation message on the developer's list and some
context in the PR is the bare minimum to me. </p>
<p> We're collaborating with each other. We appreciate meeting in
contributor's events from time to time. We also like the project
and like to take pleasure in doing good work, event when paid for
not-so-fun tasks.</p>
<p>This idea of being part of a community is our real strength.
Let's make it clear that using AI is one tool only, it does not
replace human relations. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6DC49088-50F7-4293-9F35-3C8BA17D25E6@gmail.com">
<div dir="auto"><br>
Kind regards,<br>
Harrissou</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">Le 11 avril 2026 21:08:36 GMT+02:00, Greg Troxel
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com"><gdt@lexort.com></a> a écrit :</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="com-fsck-k9__plain-text-message-pre"><div
dir="auto">Nyall Dawson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nyall.dawson@gmail.com"><nyall.dawson@gmail.com></a> writes:
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin-bottom: 1ex; --com-fsck-k9__blockquote-default-border-color: #729fcf;"><div
dir="auto"> Advance warning: Emotional reply.
Why, as a society, can we recognise that it's generally a BAD THING that AI
has destroyed the livelihoods of graphic artists and musicians, but are
BLIND to the impact it is having on professional software developers? Why
MUST we be welcoming and warm to the people who are vandalising OUR form of
art, and making it impossible for us to continue in the industry that we've
devoted our lives to?
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely NO sympathy for a new ai-slop contributor
to open source. Just like I have no sympathy toward someone flooding
spotify with AI written music, making it impossible for real artists to
make a living.
Screw that. It's already thankless enough to be an open source maintainer.
Now it's even worse.
Look after the people who have devoted YEARS of their lives to open source,
or you'll lose those.
/me out
Nyall
</div></blockquote><div dir="auto">
Before I saw your reply, I was going to comment that the "it's unkind to
label low-quality LLM-generated content as AI slop" statement, while
coming from a place of wanting to be welcoing, is missing the point that
submitting low-qualitty LLM-generated content is an offense against the
community. We would not be welcoming to people posting intentionally
offensive comments (e.g., gratuitous off-topic racial epithets) to
issues, and we wouldn't be talking about how it was unwelcoming to just
delete them and ban the submitter. This is less different than people
that think AI is ok think.
It is possible that some people submitting AI slop don't undersetand
that it is AI slop, and don't understand the harms that LLM-generated
content does to projects. Once there's a clear place to point to --
which explains that the submitter should not again submit other
LLM-generated content -- it might be better to just close with a
pointer, rather than label AI and leave open.
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org">QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org</a>
List info: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a>
Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>