diff --git a/meetings/2026-04-01.md b/meetings/2026-04-01.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..681c4073 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2026-04-01.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2026-04-01 + +## Links + +* **Recording**: +* **GitHub Issue**: +* **Minutes**: + +## Present + +* Antoine du Hamel @aduh95 (voting member) +* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member) +* Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member) +* Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member) +* Ruy Adorno @ruyadorno (voting member) +* Paolo Insogna @ShogunPanda (voting member) +* Beth Griggs @BethGriggs (regular member) +* Michaël Zasso @targos (voting member) +* Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member) +* Ruben Bridgewater @BridgeAR (voting member) +* James Snell @jasnell (voting member) +* Marco Ippolito @marco-ippolito (voting member) +* Rafael Gonzaga @RafaelGSS (voting member) +* Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member) +* Filip Skokan @panva (voting member) +* Jacob Smith @JakobJingleheimer (Guest – Node.js Collaborator) +* Fedor Indutny @indutny (Guest – Node.js TSC emeritus) +* Joe Sepi @joesepi (Guest - Node.js CPC rep) +* Maël Nison @arcanis (Guest) + +## Agenda + +### Announcements + +* We are having our flagship event colocated with RenderATL called "Node.js + Interactive", rolling out speakers this week. Bringing back the brand. +* Deadline for in-person registration for Collab Summit April 3rd. After this is + going to be depending on room capacity. +* Add DCO/Sign-off trailer for commit landing on nodejs/node + ([nodejs/core-validate-commit#141](https://github.com/nodejs/core-validate-commit/pull/141), + [nodejs/node#62510](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/62510)) + +### Reminders + +* Remember to nominate people for the + [contributor spotlight](https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/reconizing-contributors.md#bi-monthly-contributor-spotlight) + +### CPC and Board Meeting Updates + +* AI-assisted development policy was approved + . + +### nodejs/TSC + +* Vote on AI contributions [#1831](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1831), + [nodejs/node#62105](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/62105) + * Fedor: cares deeply of Node.js, works at Signal, opinion are its own. TSC is + responsible for code quality, ethical consideration, code of conduct enforcement. + It's the reason for the TSC to exist. Fedor thinks AI is antithetical to Open + Source as it is, at the limit of the MIT license. A lot of the aspiration we give + to people that contribute is that they are given attribution. AI is designed to + remove "attribution." As the governing body of Node.js, we should reject the use + of AI completely. Fundamental platforms should be written by humans. Fedor + started a petition with a couple of hundred people. Fedor think that the AI + mandates at company are preventing more people to speak up.' + * Matteo: the responsability of the Node.js TSC are listed in + . + The Linux Kernel summary is available at + . + * Robin: I shared the the questions to the General Counsel of LF and our OpenJS + Counsel. The policy is in the same spirit of the Linux Kernel policy. AI allows + up for innovation. K8s React and PyTorch adopted similar policies to enable these + contributions. It was voted by the OpenJS Board unanimously. + . + * Fedor: I'm not in agreement with this policy, as it's unethical. Most companies + are adopting policies where the the contributor is responsbile for the + contribution. When you review an AI generated PR the code is designed to look + correct/plausible. AI is known to remove tests or change them, and the code does + not work as intended. Unlike regular Pull Request it is not a review, but an + audit and it's just hard to audit it correctly. By saying "you are responsible + for the code you write" we are just shifting the responsibility of this problem + to the contributor instead of addressing it fully. + * Antoine: what do you think of the enforceability? Can we enforce it? + * Fedor: Bryan English has a good take, check the PR. Enforceability does not + matter. We would accept PR with "moved" code without attribution if we did not + know. It's important we take a stance. + * Antoine: Wouldn't that incentive folks to lie or stop contributing? + * Fedor: This is a guideline. It's ok for people to lie. We need to be strong and + aspirational, and encourage people to do what's right. + * Ruy: I was reading the commentary from the Claude Code source leak to hide the + fact that a contribution was done with AI. + * Fedor: there are many things out there and we should not be using them, like + assoult rifles. The Claude Code source code leak that we saw recently shows that + we should have a deep discussion on the ethics of its being used for writing + Node.js code. + * Matteo: AI-assistance helps folks contributing, number of contributors is now + back to the number it was in 2016. Having a global ban of AI would mean that for + many first time contributors, their first interaction with the project would be a + block because they are using the wrong tool. Also, we should not incentivize + folks to lie. + * James: nobody has been expliciting why the current set of policies are not enough + to cover for AI-assisted engineering. + * Fedor: I am glad that we are seeing an influx of new contributors. AI companies + are known to play productivity metrics that do not reflect reality. Students that + use AI are learning worse that students that do not. We are lowering the barrier + for contributing, but we are raising the barrier for becoming contributions. Our + policies are inherited from OpenJS so I don't think we can say that our policies + are sufficient. If we chose inaction the OpenJS policies will take place for + Node.js too, and since the policy document is encouraging AI use Node.js will be + encouraging AI use too. + * James: if we don't say anything, we are not encouraguing people to use AI or not. + The focus is not ot promote AI. Wheter we like these tools or not. Are our + existing code review process to review these? We still have to read the code. Are + we going to reject a valid bugfix because it was written by AI? + * Jakob: AI responses are designed to look legitimate and plausible. It takes an + extra level of scrutiny to review this. It tries to ... you, especially if you + don't know if its there. + * James: ... Everybody is agreeing that we should be made aware that a contribution + was AI-gen. Be honest. Why are the existing processes not enough? + * Fedor: I agree that honesty should be encouraged. (The question of sufficiency of + the existing code review process) reminds me of the removal of "master/slave" + terminology from the core. There is no technical reason not to use this + terminology in the code, but at the same time saying that it is technically valid + is not sufficient for our community in other ways. It resulted in Node.js to be + more inclusive long term. Historically measuring only technical merits is + insufficient for large project. OpenJS encourages the use of AI given that + statement in the AI policy. + * ... + +## Upcoming Meetings + +* **Node.js Project Calendar**: + +Click `Add to Google Calendar` at the bottom left to add to your own Google calendar.