Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues
rtm at gol.com
Fri May 13 12:06:04 UTC 2016
As a non-member potential proposer, I'd strongly second this motion.
Based on the following:
*Ideas for evolving the ECMAScript language are accepted in any form. Any
discussion, idea or proposal for a change or addition which has not been
submitted as a formal proposal is considered to be a “strawman” (stage 0)
and has no acceptance requirements. Such submissions must either come from
members of TC39 or from non-members who have registered via Ecma
from https://tc39.github.io/process-document/, after registering, I
submitted a pull request at https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/449, which
was politely rejected by @michaelficarra with the note that I needed a
champion and the process document was out of date.
My proposal, called extended pick notation (see
https://github.com/rtm/js-pick-notation) is, IMHO, well above average in
terms of having a fleshed-out proposal and a POC implementation in sweet.
Without rehashing the details and the motivation, it's a feature which
quite a few people have requested in one form or another, has limited
syntactic footprint, and has generated a fair amount of feedback on the ML.
It would nice if I could find a champion but that hasn't happened yet.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:55 AM, G. Kay Lee <
balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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](
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss