Open
Conversation
| - TypeScript team | ||
| - uv wasi team | ||
| - node api team | ||
| - Other (specify) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - Other (specify) | |
| - Test runner team | |
| - Userland migrations team | |
| - Other (specify) |
| - Release working group | ||
| - Website team | ||
| - Next 10 working group | ||
| - Loaders group |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think Loaders group is basically defunct now
Comment on lines
+35
to
+67
| ### How did you first get involved ? (single-select question) | ||
|
|
||
| - Attended Node.js Conference | ||
| - Attended collaborator summit | ||
| - Code and learn | ||
| - Joined working group | ||
| - Issues/PR(s) to address problems I was having | ||
| - PR(s) to add new features I wanted | ||
| - PR(s)/Issue(s) because I wanted to get involved in the project | ||
| - PR(s) to improve code coverage | ||
| - PR(s) to improve tests | ||
| - PR(s) to fix flaky tests | ||
| - Pulled in by other collaborators | ||
| - Other (specify) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Why did you get involved ? (multi-select question) | ||
|
|
||
| - Hobby, wanted to contributed to a key open source project | ||
| - Using Node.js personally wanted to contribute | ||
| - Work for a company that uses Node.js, encouraged to contribute | ||
| - Joined a team at the company I work for that contributes | ||
| - Other (specify) | ||
|
|
||
| ### What would have made it easier to get involved ? (multi-select question) | ||
|
|
||
| - More documentation | ||
| - Easier ways to contact existing collaborators | ||
| - Easier ways to get guidance/direction from existing collaborators | ||
| - Faster build time | ||
| - Easier build process | ||
| - Mentoring | ||
| - Better identification of work that needs to be done across the project | ||
| - Other (specify) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would make sense to ask these conditionally if the respondent has said their tenure is less than 2 years (otherwise, we already have this info from previous surveys, and even if we don't, those responses will be outdated info).
|
|
||
| ### What makes you want to continue contributing to the project? (multi-select question) | ||
|
|
||
| - Working Groups |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - Working Groups | |
| - Working Groups / Teams |
| - PRs take too long to land | ||
| - Long discussions on PRs | ||
| - Having to deal with AI slop contributions | ||
| - Other (specify) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - Other (specify) | |
| - Toxic peers | |
| - Other (specify) |
| - Having to spend time dealing with Node.js PR AI slop contributions | ||
| - Other (specify) | ||
|
|
||
| ### How frequently do you encounter AI-generated ("AI slop") contributions — such as low-effort or poorly adapted PRs — in your Node.js collaboration work? (single-select question) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ### How frequently do you encounter AI-generated ("AI slop") contributions — such as low-effort or poorly adapted PRs — in your Node.js collaboration work? (single-select question) | |
| ### How frequently do you encounter poor-quality AI-generated contributions ("AI slop") in your Node.js collaboration work? (single-select question) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Previous questions refer to "AI slop", but it's defined here. I think the definition should be moved earlier.
| - Frequently (once or twice per week) | ||
| - Very frequently (several or more times per week) | ||
|
|
||
| ### On average, how much of your Node.js collaboration time is spent reviewing, addressing, or closing AI slop contributions? (single-select question) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ### On average, how much of your Node.js collaboration time is spent reviewing, addressing, or closing AI slop contributions? (single-select question) | |
| ### On average, how much of your Node.js contribution time is spent reviewing, addressing, or closing AI slop? (single-select question) |
Comment on lines
+141
to
+148
| ### Please rate your agreement with each statement below. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) | ||
|
|
||
| - AI slop contributions negatively affect my experience as a Node.js collaborator | ||
| - Dealing with AI slop has reduced my motivation to continue contributing to Node.js | ||
| - Because of AI slop, I am considering reducing how often I review certain contribution types | ||
| - Because of AI slop, I am considering stepping back from reviewing entirely | ||
| - I would support introducing an official AI slop label for flagging and tracking these contributions | ||
| - An AI slop label would meaningfully help the team manage contribution quality |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are all AI-negative; should there be some AI-positive options like
- Vibe-coding helps my contributing experience and/or makes my contributions more productive
- Agentic-coding makes my contribution time more productive
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there should also be some kind of "n/a" in the matrix
| ### How do you use AI tools in your own Node.js contributions? (multi-select question) | ||
|
|
||
| - I do not use AI tools in my contributions | ||
| - Code generation or completion (e.g., Copilot, Cursor) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - Code generation or completion (e.g., Copilot, Cursor) | |
| - Code generation or completion (e.g., Copilot, Cursor, CodeRabbit) |
Comment on lines
+161
to
+166
| ### Overall, how useful have AI tools been in improving the quality or efficiency of your Node.js contributions? (single-select question) | ||
| - I do not use AI tools in my contributions | ||
| - Not useful at all | ||
| - Slightly useful | ||
| - Moderately useful | ||
| - Very useful |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's combine this with that strongly dis/agree above :)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on #297 with new items & adjustments discussed in the 04 March team meeting