Add minutes for 2026-04-01 meeting (#1848)

Co-authored-by: Fedor Indutny <238531+indutny@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tobias Nießen <tniessen@tnie.de>

Author: 3 people

meetings/2026-04-01.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# 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
+
+* 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 his 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 responsibilities 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 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 incentivize 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
+    assault 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 encouraging people to use AI or not.
+    The focus is not to promote AI. Whether 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 it's 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**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar>
+
+Click `Add to Google Calendar` at the bottom left to add to your own Google calendar.