Apply suggestions from review

Co-authored-by: Tobias Nießen <tniessen@tnie.de>

Author: tniessen

meetings/2026-04-01.md

@@ -1,134 +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
-
+# 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.
+  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.
+  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
-
+  [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
-
+  [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
-
+  <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
+  [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 responsability of the Node.js TSC are listed in
+    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>.
+    <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>.
+    <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?
+    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?
+    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.
+    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.
+    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
+    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.
+    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.
+    folks to lie.
   * James: nobody has been expliciting why the current set of policies are not enough
-    to cover for AI-assisted engineering.
+    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
+    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?
+    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.
+    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?
+    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.
+    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.