| 03:25 | <bakkot> | ljharb: re https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/404, I just read the original issue description again and saw you were asking about being able to write specifically a < b, which ecmarkup doesn't support even with https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/481 - < and & are specifically excluded so that HTML parsers still work. Would you consider https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2901 to close #404 or should I leave it open? |
| 03:38 | <ljharb> | i think it’s fine to go with best effort here |
| 03:43 | <jschoi> | I forgot: Before Stage 3, are champions supposed to reach out to multiple editors to get a sign-off for Stage 3? proposal-array-from-async has two reviewers, and one of them is an editor, but I don’t remember how to fulfill the criterion that “all ECMAScript editors have signed off on the current spec text”. |
| 03:44 | <bakkot> | as a rule, yes, if you want editors to review you should ping us |
| 03:45 | <jschoi> | Dang, that was my bad, then. So it’s probably too late to request Stage 3 for next week, and I probably should delay to November? |
| 03:48 | <bakkot> | eh, we do pretty often advance things to "stage 3 pending editor review" or something like that |
| 03:48 | <bakkot> | fromAsync is simple enough that it's probably fine |
| 04:38 | <jschoi> | Alright, sounds good, thanks. |
| 10:16 | <ryzokuken> | process proposal: let's switch to hedgedoc/hackmd for notes instead of gdocs so we could just write markdown and publish on github without having to convert formats |
| 17:51 | <shu> | for the folks who attended the incubator call today, the transcription is up |
| 17:51 | <shu> | it's not too bad! |
| 17:51 | <shu> | still needs a human touch obviously but slightly better than i thought |
| 18:00 | <ptomato> | how is it better than the plenary autotranscription if they both use google technology? |
| 18:24 | <bakkot> | if nothing else it's able to do attribution |
| 18:26 | <bakkot> | but I think the main thing was just that everyone had an accent the bot could handle; the biggest struggle for the bot is non-native accents |
| 18:27 | <ptomato> | oh yeah, I was literally just wondering that, most of the attendees had North American accents |
| 18:31 | <shu> | it's probably also slightly delayed? |
| 18:31 | <shu> | it wasn't live, i just got a doc at the end |
| 18:40 | <bakkot> | that is also part of it yeah |
| 18:41 | <bakkot> | the API actually gives me both "in progress" and "finalized" events, but the finalized events are often ~20-30 seconds delayed from the start of the vocalization they're transcribing, which I found is too long to try to edit in real time |
| 18:41 | <bakkot> | so I am using the less-good "in progress" events |
| 18:42 | <bakkot> | (they're not that different, though. a word or two here and there.) |
| 20:21 | <rbuckton> | Dang, that was my bad, then. So it’s probably too late to request Stage 3 for next week, and I probably should delay to November? |
| 20:25 | <rbuckton> | Is there an easy way to @-mention the editors in a tc39 repo? I see groups for chairs, and ecma402-editors, but not for ecma262 editors. |
| 20:38 | <ljharb> | there’s an editors group but I’m not sure if it’s referencable by others, I’ll look into it |
| 20:38 | <shu> | rbuckton: there was a lot of material given right at the deadline, it's not procedurally an issue of course but i'm personally not likely to have the time to give it a full review. still trying for a best effort |
| 20:49 | <rbuckton> | rbuckton: there was a lot of material given right at the deadline, it's not procedurally an issue of course but i'm personally not likely to have the time to give it a full review. still trying for a best effort |
| 23:15 | <jschoi> | bakkot: When looking at your Set methods presentation for next week (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HCqPMsWiTtsn92gA3b1luVpnVHWVVR0iKaAE0marxkA/edit#slide=id.g13a69787e9f_0_0), I’m starting to wonder is why we excluded Set.union, Set.intersection, etc. as static methods rather than instance methods. Why were static methods excluded, again? |
| 23:15 | <jschoi> | I don’t see mentions of this option in the previous Set methods presentations. Static methods might be able to sidestep the issues with the “ The only discussion I can find about the static-methods option is in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-set-methods/issues/1, and I don’t really see any compelling reasoning against static methods given in there. |