| 16:58 | <littledan> | I will miss the AsyncContext meeting, but I want to encourage Googlers to get in touch with Jatin on the CWI Wiz team re: testing AsyncContext. If needed, maybe Igalia could provide them a custom Chrome build including AsyncContext for testing. |
| 16:58 | <littledan> | sorry I would like to talk about the FinalizationRegistry context issue but I won't be able to today |
| 16:59 | <littledan> | but feel free to discuss without me; I'm fine with reaching the other conclusion, but I'd like us to strongly consider simplifying and reducing overall complexity vs Justin's proposal. |
| 18:17 | <Bradford Smith> | Is the AsyncContext meeting open to interested parties who are not delegates? |
| 18:17 | <Bradford Smith> | A member of our Google JS/TS Libraries team is very interested in the AsyncContext effort because he needs it for our libraries. |
| 18:18 | <Bradford Smith> | Steve Hicks |
| 18:26 | <Andreu Botella> | Is the AsyncContext meeting open to interested parties who are not delegates? |
| 18:31 | <Bradford Smith> | I would certainly like Steve to be able to attend if he wishes. I think he likely has some interesting ideas to contribute, and he definitely wants to use the upcoming AsyncContext feature to inform development we need. |
| 19:01 | <littledan> | Steve can definitely join; he is a Google employee, and Google is an Ecma member |
| 19:01 | <littledan> | the important thing is that intellectual property contributed by Steve is licensed for the standard, which is already covered |
| 19:02 | <littledan> | I'd like this call to be open to all relevant experts; please propose any more people who you want to join, and we'll figure out how to get them in. |
| 19:02 | <littledan> | this might require signing certain legal agreements to license intellectual property |
| 19:03 | <littledan> | did you end up discussing the FinalizationRegistry snapshot question? |
| 19:06 | <Andreu Botella> | did you end up discussing the FinalizationRegistry snapshot question? |
| 19:09 | <Justin Ridgewell> | I think we should be open to anyone. I had invited Steve to join in Jan, but he declined. If he's changed his mind I'd be happy to have him. |
| 19:11 | <littledan> | Steve has also joined in other TC39 calls, so I'm kinda surprised that Bradford is even asking... |
| 19:14 | <Bradford Smith> | Thanks for confirming that Dan. I invited Steve to the meeting this morning (ineptly, as it turned out, so he missed it this time), but then I thought maybe I was making an incorrect assumption about access to this group. The "tools meeting" has always been more of a community thing, and I suddenly thought I might be incorrectly assuming the same rules for this one. |
| 19:15 | <littledan> | in general Ecma defers to members to decide who represents them |
| 19:15 | <littledan> | but also this isn't a main TC meeting so it's just informal; we can decide on whatever attendance rules we want |
| 19:16 | <littledan> | but if there is a substantial contribution that comes from someone who doesn't have a membership agreement set up for intellectual property, they need to sign the non-member contributor form https://tc39.es/agreements/contributor/ |
| 19:16 | <littledan> | (this isn't the case for Steve--he is covered as a Googler) |
| 19:17 | <littledan> | in theory, discussion can constitute contribution, so better safe than sorry in requesting signatures, IMO |