15:28
<shu>
thanks for ping, i'll review it today
19:53
<shu>
other than 2974 are we all green on 2023 cut?
19:56
<bakkot>
I believe so
21:54
<Rob Palmer>

I closed the Editors request for feedback today. The results are a 100% approval rating and one text comment:

Contributing to Ecma262, I've found it difficult to ensure my work conforms to the latest conventions requested by the editors. This can hold up contributions for months in consecutive rounds of review. I'd request that the editors work on documenting the necessary writing style and conventions in a style guide for contributors. If a contribution in progress raises a new question about some phrasing consistency, I'd prefer the editors to err on the side of settling the consistency question later so as not to hold up the contribution.

22:15
<jmdyck>
I agree that it's difficult (before review) to ensure conformance to editorial conventions, and that a style guide would help. However, I'm doubtful that it's "held up contributions for months in consecutive rounds of review". Hold-ups and rounds of review do happen, but I don't think editorial conventions are the cause. Maybe I'm forgetting some cases though.
22:18
<shu>
i take that as a signal that they'd like either quicker turnaround, or for editors to take over for smaller changes instead of asking for multiple rounds of back-and-forths
22:19
<shu>
and given the unpredictability of available time each of us has from week-to-week, i lean towards the latter solution
22:19
<shu>
or at least open that up as a request by the PR author, that they can ask us to take something over
22:26
<Michael Ficarra>
yes, we talked about this feedback at an editor call and decided to take over PRs when they only need minor editorial changes to land
22:33
<bakkot>
(unless the submitter explicitly requests otherwise; jmdyck I think you've said you'd prefer to manage those things for yourself)
23:29
<jmdyck>
I'll always want to take my PRs to merge-ready, yes.
23:30
<jmdyck>
(modulo a squash, I suppose)