Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

G. Kay Lee balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com
Fri May 13 04:25:35 UTC 2016


Okay, I found a [list of TC39 member organizations](
http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39-RF-TG%20-%20members.htm)...
it's hidden in some really obscure corner on the website and there's no way
to tell if it's up-to-date, but still a nice reference to have. +1 for
putting this info onto GitHub with additional info of regular
representatives.

I still believe that there is something wrong with the current way we're
treating proposals from members and non-members. According to the [TC39
process](https://tc39.github.io/process-document/) per se, a stage 0
proposal really means nothing serious... It's essentially just a physical
parallel of opening a thread on an internet forum/ML so further discussions
and debates can start to happen, during the TC39 meetings in this case. A
stage 0 "thread" can still die quick due to a lack of responses and
interests.

But a lot of non-member contributions were denied of this basic opportunity
to "post a thread" - certainly, they can post here on the ML, but the ML is
hardly a suitable medium to collaborate and push things forward. The [pipe
operator proposal](https://github.com/mindeavor/es-pipeline-operator) has
garnered a lot of attentions and interests, with heated discussions
happening here as well as across other places, but eventually just died
down when people found out that they couldn't even get a simple
yes-or-no-for-stage-0 from any TC39 representative [after one month](
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/the-pipeline-operator-making-multiple-function-calls-look-great)
of time. And remember that stage 0 simply means starting discussions in a
more formal physical setting.

Why not just allow proposers to chime in remotely during a TC39 meeting
with their proposals? This helps the whole standardization effort by:

* Allowing every proposal an equal opportunity to be scrutinized and
discussed, with clear and organized feedbacks from member representatives
on why or why not the proposal in question can be considered.

* Reducing the chaos on the ML that similar or even identical proposals
repeatedly being raised from their graves over the years because of the
lack of conclusive verdict from representatives, or that the verdict is
being buried somewhere in the deep abyss of piles of discussions.

* Make things more open and equal and united; proposals should be treated
and reacted upon solely by its quality and content, not by the employer of
the proposer. It's certainly not of the best interests for the language if
we divide people into major and minor leagues by their employment.

To counter the potential influx of proposals, we can and maybe should add
additional rules for stage 0 proposals, for example:

* A stage 0 proposal MUST be presented by its proposer - either physically
or remotely - to TC39 meetings 6 months within its acceptance into stage 0,
or it will be automatically rejected.

This will also give people a more concrete impression that all stage-0s are
just nothing more than some "ideas", are subjected to total overhaul or
even being nullified, and that they shouldn't really enable the stage-0
preset in Babel all over the place. The general impression is that
stage-0s, while may be sitting there for an indefinite amount of time, will
most likely make ways into the standard eventually, so people are becoming
reckless with stage-0 syntaxes or additions. A rule like that can certainly
make both proposers and transpiler users be more careful and responsible
for their works.





On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Clarification: Bocoup is not a member of Ecma. Leo, Yehuda and I are
> representatives for jQuery Foundation, which is a member.
>
> Rick
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:12 PM Domenic Denicola <d at domenic.me> wrote:
>
>> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of G.
>> Kay Lee
>>
>> > Unfortunately, the latest stage 0 proposal (Object enumerables), which
>> is an outside contribution (in [the list](
>> https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/stage0.md) the column header
>> says "champion" while some people listed are not TC39 members; I believe it
>> was trying to say "proposers"), doesn't really seem to follow this process;
>>
>> This is incorrect. Leo Balter is employed by Bocoup, a TC39 member.
>> John-David Dalton is employed by Microsoft, another TC39 member. Both are
>> champions, not "proposers".
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160513/07fed17a/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list