Just an educated guess (I'm not actually involved in any part of this effort - just a random person subscribed to this list), but I think it's because of ECMA itself. Granted, TC39 has already noted that this one doesn't exactly fit well with the rest of their framework, because of the constant and frequent input, and because the software industry moves a lot faster than the hardware and electrical engineering industries (that's most of what ECMA deals with).
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016, 06:22 Salvador de la Puente González < sa...@unoyunodiez.com> wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, but why do we need the legal organization, why to not > simply do the GiHub part? > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:36 AM, G. Kay Lee < > balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Allen, thanks for extending your support :-D >> >> My observation as well as belief is that, if a community effort has >> turned out to be successful, than volunteers will flock together and the >> movement / organization will be able to self-sustain for quite long enough. >> So the issue has always been how to make sure a community effort is on the >> right track toward success from the get-go. >> >> For this specific effort, at this specific stage, I think what we need >> right now is to add more credibility to this whole endeavor (since I'm not >> a familiar, high-profile figure), so I'm going to spend some time doing >> research to put forward a more concrete plain written down in plain text, >> and just go ahead with it. I believe with each progress we'll eventually >> attract more interested parties and once we garner enough attention and >> participation, we'll solve the "not-enough-time" problem. Hopefully. We'll >> see ;-) >> >> Again, very glad to receive your support. Will keep you posted whenever >> there's some new progress. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I think this is a very interesting idea. TC39 has put a lot of effort >>> into community transparency over the last decade but Ecma International >>> (really most international standards organization) is organizationally not >>> structured or naturally inclined to directly accept “contributions” from >>> individual. Changing this within Ecma has been and will continue to be a >>> slow and sometimes frustrating process. The idea of a NFP joining Ecma as >>> a community surrogate is an interacting way to approach the problem. I >>> think it could work. >>> >>> However, while the idea is simple enough the actual process of building >>> and sustaining such a NFP is not so simple. Kevin Smith has already raised >>> some very valid cautions about this. In particular, his cautions about the >>> amount personal time required of you (or any other individuals sharing >>> leadership respondability of the NFP) should not be ignored. >>> >>> But, I think this really could be a viable solution if you and other >>> organizers of the NFP are sufficiently motivated and committed. >>> >>> I’d happy to act as an adviser as you try to get this organizers. >>> >>> Allen >>> >>> PS, you might find this provides some useful background on TC39 >>> participation: >>> http://wirfs-brock.com/allen/files/papers/standpats-asianplop2016.pdf >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
