Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

G. Kay Lee balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com
Wed May 11 23:47:42 UTC 2016


> I haven't seen many proposals actually born in the ML, I've rather seen
tons of proposals discussed offline and/or suddenly part of some
repo/site/post/strawman.

Yes you are so right. Just a few hours ago we have yet another new [stage 0
proposal](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/stage0.md) popping up
out of nowhere, never have seen it being discussed or even mentioned here
on the mailing list.

I guess... if I am really, seriously trying to propose and get something
into the standardization process, I might as well just try drafting up
something privately then go lobbying some TC39 members on Twitter without
ever bringing things to light and discussions on this mailing list. The
thing is - your probability of getting some real feedbacks from TC39
members is way higher if you go talk to them in person. On the list,
however, they just chime in from time to time occasionally, but if they are
to help things to progress further, it wouldn't be here. Fancy stage 0
proposals sometimes with alien concepts are popping up in real quick speed
now, but some long-time pain-in-the-ass like `?? / ?: / ?= / whatever
variant` are just scattering around here in the list across a dozen of
threads with no one in power willing to take a real initiative.

Apparently this is really bad and contributes to a false image that only
those who are "friends" or close to TC39 members could have a chance to
take a shot.


On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand, and mostly agree, with Isiah's concerns but, about this:
>
> > The higher barrier of entry helps filter most of that out other than
> here in the mailing list...
>
> I haven't seen many proposals actually born in the ML, I've rather seen
> tons of proposals discussed offline and/or suddenly part of some
> repo/site/post/strawman.
>
> I've also seen that most accepted proposals are from people that comes
> from "considered more relevant" companies, with few exceptions that came
> out of Rick's or Yehuda's effort.
>
> The "filter" idea is absolutely a valid concern but I wish there was more
> effort in considering the "daily-community" too (those GitHub reactions
> might be worth something, after all)
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here's my concerns:
>>
>> 1. People are going to blow up the issues they like, instead of either
>> creating issues in those related repos or finding more appropriate channels
>> for them.
>> 2. People are going to start filling issues for whatever proposal they
>> came up with, without really deliberating over it, and without bringing it
>> up on es-discuss at all. This will lead to way more to sift through than
>> what should be necessary.
>> 3. Making proposals as simple as creating an issue (at least from the
>> casual observer's perspective) will lead into a lot of "this is a good
>> idea" strawmen of likely very low quality. The higher barrier of entry
>> helps filter most of that out other than here in the mailing list.
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 17:58 Brandon Andrews <
>> warcraftthreeft at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For those not aware of the "currently compiled list" he's referring to
>>> this https://github.com/tc39/ecma262 It has no clear history other than
>>> viewing the change log.
>>>
>>> I agree. Ideally every link on that page should link to an issue that
>>> tracks the information. This would allow for much cleaner archival of
>>> proposals. People just need to be clear that each proposal issue is for
>>> status purposes only. The issue for each proposal could contain a link to
>>> the proposal's github repo where the mailing list and issues could be found.
>>>
>>>
>>> > It would also be worthwhile to organize more general design ideas into
>>> issues that could be referenced by specific proposals.
>>>
>>> The thinking right now seems to be that people creating proposals should
>>> reference mailing list discussions directly. Creating issues would just
>>> mean people would be referencing an issue which then references mailing
>>> list threads. I do see the the usefulness though. Currently there are
>>> probably over 10 threads for null coalescing operators under multiple
>>> names. The mailing list has no method for marking duplicates so the posts
>>> generally just reference each other. I posted about this months ago, but I
>>> don't think there's any interest in simplifying this.
>>>
>>> In theory under the current system you should create a proposal then get
>>> it to stage 0 then everyone would reference the proposal which would then
>>> reference the full list of discussions. That is general design ideas really
>>> just need a stage 0 proposal.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160512/6d606c5f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list