Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

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

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

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 wrote: > From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of G. > Kay Lee > >

RE: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@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"

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

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

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

> 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

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

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

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

New proposals should be a repo. Any discussion or changes in the proposal should be centered in that repo. Those repos will be transferred to the TC39 org once they hit stage 1. That repo should include links to any relevant es-discuss threads. Old proposals may be mired in legacy wikis and

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

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

Re: Re: Tracking proposals should be standardized with issues

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