Maybe also a factor: JS has changed a huge amount in a short time. Developers, browsers, tools need to catch up, digest the changes, decide what real problems remain. We have enough new for now.
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for pointing out some issues with the current state of things. > While, in general, having more people directly participate in the committee > is probably a good thing, I don't think that will fix the problem. I think > you'll find yourself running into the same troubles that the current > members face. Specifically, there is more work to be done than there is > time to do it. There are more things to reach consensus on than there is > time to discuss. Also, there is also the risk of perpetuating an unhealthy > "us-vs-them" mentality which seems to underly this plan and this post. > > Instead (or perhaps simultaneously while you explore this plan) why don't > we try to address the community involvement problem? > > The big problem, I think, is that community members are directed to > es-discuss and yet es-discuss has been largely been abandoned by TC39 > committee members. Why has es-discuss been abandoned? There are a couple > of reasons I think: > > 1. Github (and their "issues" feature) has turned out to be a much better > platform for working out design details on particular proposals. Community > members have successfully and productively participated in the design > process in this way. > 2. The signal-to-noise ratio here is *really* bad these days. Let's be > honest: most of the strawman proposals that are brought here are pretty > terrible. It takes time to review and comment on even the worst ones, and > that's time that I (for one) would rather spend doing other things, like > working on observables, or cancel tokens, or private state, or async > generators, or drinking eine bier. > > The other problem that I've heard mentioned is that certain high-profile > proposals (like that function-pipe one) aren't getting any traction. > > First, there are *very* few proposals that fit into that category. Claude > Pache's https://github.com/claudepache/es-optional-chaining is great! In > general though, if a proposal isn't getting picked up it's probably because > either it has significant issues that committee members don't like, or the > time for it just isn't right. Time is a limiting factor and we have many > proposals working through the process already. > > I'll spend some time thinking about how we can improve the es-discuss > involvement problem. Thanks again for bringing attention to it! > > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:06 AM G. Kay Lee < > balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> (This is a continuation of [a previous discussion]( >> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/tracking-proposals-should-be-standardized-with-issues >> )) >> >> So, to summarize, while rules and platforms currently in place do allow >> for community contributions, they are hardly friendly ones. A few issues: >> >> * The mailing list is a really awkward platform for community >> participants to collaborate, especially when debates and discussions can >> span months, even years; threads, reasonings, and important conclusions >> tend to become buried over time, resulting in a never-ending reincarnation >> of dead ideas and, more importantly, lose of precious lores and insights. >> >> * Self-contradictory rules about the processing of community proposals in >> official documents, because these rules were [authored by a few different >> individuals without a definitive source]( >> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/tracking-proposals-should-be-standardized-with-issues#content-17 >> ). >> >> * The most widely circulated version of these rules demands community >> proposals to find "champions", ie. member representatives willing to serve >> as lobbyists; the real story, however, is that member representatives are >> very busy and, when they do have time, they will almost always lobby for >> proposals that their organizations or themselves are interested in. No >> blaming here because this is just the way human society works, which brings >> the conclusion that this requirement is simply antihuman. >> >> In the previous discussion, Allen mentioned that a lot of efforts have >> already been put in place to make TC39 as open as possible under the bylaws >> and rules of Ecma International, for which I am sure every non-member >> participant of the standardization process is really appreciated. But I >> think there is still room to do better. >> >> For that reason I intend to form a nonprofit organization and apply for >> Ecma membership to help further opening up the standardization process of >> ECMAScript to interested participants who currently do not enjoy the >> privilege of becoming member representatives. >> >> I've been in contact with Secretary General Istvan and apparently this is >> doable as long as the General Assembly vote in favor of my application, so >> I think it's a good thing to raise this plan here and see if anyone has any >> good feedbacks or concerns, so we can iron out these issues during the >> early stage - or put an early end to it if there are some good reasons. A >> legally registered nonprofit with an official "tax exemption" status is the >> acceptance criteria for Ecma NFP members, but also requires me to go >> through a hell lot of bureaucracy and legal works and hold a few physical >> meetings with the presence of government dudes, so I'd really like to make >> sure we all like the idea (**especially if you're a representative of an >> Ordinary member organization**) before I'll go ahead. >> >> --- >> >> The plan is (roughly) like this: >> >> Once formed, this nonprofit organization will help TC39 by voluntarily >> overseeing and shepherding community participations. There will be a single >> set of clear rules on how to contribute. >> >> Community proposals will be asked to be formatted as GitHub repos and be >> submitted in the form of GitHub issues to the nonprofit's GitHub project, >> and all discussions are expected to take place on GitHub. Dupes will be >> closed, related topics can be easily referenced, and past discussions can >> be easily searched. >> >> Everyone can become a member of this nonprofit as long as an image copy >> of passport is provided (required by my home country's law). Members can >> rightfully become the nonprofit's representatives to TC39, and present >> their own proposals (or others' if they would) in official TC39 meetings. >> No longer do we need to force other member representatives to become >> "champions" or lobbyists - proposers will be their own best advocates. >> >> In order to prevent TC39 from being flooded, some throttle mechanism will >> also be installed. Only 3 community proposals for one TC39 meeting at most. >> In case of more than 3 pending community proposals, we'll decide the >> priority of presentation by their GitHub stars. We'll also have a threshold >> on minimal star counts to weed out really bad proposals. >> >> The nonprofit will delegate anyone who wish to attend a certain TC39 >> meeting as its representative to help make the standardization as open as >> possible; these representatives can help by participating in the >> discussions and providing more diverse insights to topics at hand; they >> will not however bring in additional proposals for that specific meeting. >> >> --- >> >> This is still a rough plan, and everyone's feedback is welcomed so that >> the plan can be adjusted if needed to make this thing work as intended. >> >> Again, if you're a representative of an Ordinary member organization, >> your input will be more than valuable. >> >> Let's see if we can make things work even better for the community and >> the language. >> >> >> *G. Kay Lee* >> github.com/gsklee >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
