Add minutes for 2026-04-01 meeting

meetings/2026-04-01.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2026-04-01
+
+## Links
+
+* **Recording**: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzw4D2MqAXY>
+* **GitHub Issue**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1845>
+* **Minutes**: <https://hackmd.io/@openjs-nodejs/r1K17WfjZg>
+
+## 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
+
+*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+* AI-assisted development policy was approved <https://openjsf.cdn.prismic.io/openjsf/aca4d5GXnQHGZDiZ_OpenJS_AI_Coding_Assistants_Policy.pdf>.
+
+### 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. Fedor things 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 <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/main/TSC-Charter.md#section-4-responsibilities-of-the-tsc>. The Linux Kernel summary is available at <https://gist.github.com/mcollina/8a4f2ee2e64d38edb90760016e89f919>.
+  * 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. <https://openjsf.cdn.prismic.io/openjsf/aca4d5GXnQHGZDiZ_OpenJS_AI_Coding_Assistants_Policy.pdf>.
+  * 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 a PR it's designed to look correct/plausible, they remove tests, the change tests and the code does not work as intended. It's just hard to audit it correctly. We are just shifting the responsibility of using AI 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 shows that we should have an ethical discussion.
+  * 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. I don't think we can say that our policies are insufficient. I don't see how our code review policies are not enough. But ... (can somebody fill?)
+  * 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. It remind me of "master/slave" discussion, but at the same time it's not sufficient in other ways. It resulted in Node 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**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar>
+
+Click `Add to Google Calendar` at the bottom left to add to your own Google calendar.