| 00:31 | <Aki> | This is spectacular jschoi thank you so much |
| 00:36 | <ptomato> | i co-sign on to all of the above, it is really good! |
| 00:37 | <ptomato> | should be a great resource to point people to who still think the decision was made too hastily |
| 10:00 | <littledan> | I would encourage the TC39 CoC to be a bit more proactive/assertive going forward. I worry that the lack of enforcement actions makes the CoC in practice pretty weak. |
| 15:35 | <Jory Burson> | littledan we have moderated this user (and many others) - I think the issue is not that we aren't proactive or assertive but that you are not made aware of the actions taken? |
| 15:36 | <Jory Burson> | that is something we can discuss; to what extent we want to share with the delegates which actions have been taken against whom |
| 16:22 | <rkirsling> | hmm yeah, an announcement (however vague) would've been comforting in this scenario |
| 16:24 | <jschoi> | I appreciate the work the CoC is doing; I’d love to know whenever n number of CoC violations were handled, even without specifics. |
| 16:24 | <jschoi> | Your hard work indeed affects my own everyday work with the proposals I’m involved with, so it’s something I do indeed care about. A number would be super cool every so often. :) |
| 16:24 | <rkirsling> | since it's the sort of nightmare scenario that makes one feel like "yeah, best to avoid championing things" |
| 17:40 | <TabAtkins> | I won't share details publicly, but I will say I'm satisfied with the moderation results. There was an unfortunate 1-day delay due to some accidental scheduling overlaps, but that isn't a general problem that will be repeated. |
| 17:45 | <TabAtkins> | I'll also say that for most people, the best response to this would have been to temporarily impose interaction limits on the repo. I'm experienced with this sort of thing and was confident I could handle the influx, but I considered deploying it myself. |
| 17:45 | <TabAtkins> | That doesn't require CoC intervention, unlike banning (which has to be done on the org level, not individual repos). |
| 17:48 | <TabAtkins> | And in hindsight, I probably should have turned on interaction limits as soon as I logged in to see the centithread that spawned over Sunday night, just as a preventative measure while we got things handled. |
| 17:48 | <TabAtkins> | the CoC committee is going to compile some guidelines to help other proposal champions deal with these sorts of situations; I hope that "impose interaction limits early" shows up in those ^_^ |
| 18:28 | <shu> | for ArrayBuffer enthusiasts, we're ironing some spec bugs during implementation of resizable buffers, and hit on an edge case with resizing buffers in the middle of a TA prototype method where i think we can design something more sensible than just copying the Array methods. feedback welcome: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-resizablearraybuffer/pull/75 |
| 18:28 | <shu> | (to be clear, the message should still be "don't resize in the middle" just like "don't detach in the middle", but we should still fully define the behavior in the spec) |