So I just took some time to look into existing contribution rules ([1]( https://tc39.github.io/process-document/) / [2]( https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)) and it appears that TC39 members can come up with stage 0 proposals at will, while outside contributors need to go through the additional process of:
Posting the proposal to es-discuss => Receive favorable feedbacks => Find a TC39 member to back it up 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; compare this to the recent operator overloading proposal PR ([3]( https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/561) / [4]( https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/564)). All these subtle hints that it's far easier to make things happen by taking the discussion "off the table" is just... bad. Really bad. IMHO, in no time, we'll see a giant influx of stage 0 proposals being established without ever consulting this very discussion list. These proposals will be from authors of frameworks and libraries, and will be something that largely only to serve their projects' own interests, so that they can propagandize to their users that "blah-blah-blah is now a stage 0 proposal and you can start using it in Babel TODAY!" and make an impression to the JS community that their creations are something new and trendy and of the current state-of-the-art. On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:47 AM, G. Kay Lee < [email protected]> wrote: > > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
