| 14:36 | <dminor> | I think 90 minutes is too long for a Stage 1 advancement topic. I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the presentation and the proposals, but advancement to Stage 1 is about agreement that the problem is worth investigating, and a 90 minute timebox to me sounds like we're getting into too many details about how to solve the problem. I would prefer a shorter Stage 1 advancement presentation, followed by a Stage 1 update at the next plenary. I think that splitting this way could help keep the discussion more focused, by separating the "should this be part of JavaScript" from "how should we do this" into separate discussions. |
| 15:13 | <rbuckton> | I think 90 minutes is too long for a Stage 1 advancement topic. I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the presentation and the proposals, but advancement to Stage 1 is about agreement that the problem is worth investigating, and a 90 minute timebox to me sounds like we're getting into too many details about how to solve the problem. I would prefer a shorter Stage 1 advancement presentation, followed by a Stage 1 update at the next plenary. I think that splitting this way could help keep the discussion more focused, by separating the "should this be part of JavaScript" from "how should we do this" into separate discussions. |
| 15:14 | <rbuckton> | It's also structured so that I can split it up into two presentations, and potentially two separate proposals if necessary. |
| 15:16 | <rbuckton> | I can also break off the hoisting discussion into a separate open-ended discussion on the agenda |
| 15:16 | <dminor> | My opinion is that the hoisting conversation is more appropriate once this reaches Stage 1. I don't want to be pedantic about the process, I'm also concerned about people's capacity for attention, and I think having a Stage 1 Update specifically about hoisting might end up being more productive in terms of useful feedback for you. |
| 15:19 | <dminor> | But if others on the committee would like to do it all at once, I won't stand in their way :) |
| 15:23 | <rbuckton> | I'm somewhat doubtful that a two month delay on a general discussion about hoisting is beneficial? It's a known concern from prior discussions dating back 8-9 years from when Yehuda was the initial decorators champion. It may take multiple sessions to iron out, so I'd like to get the ball rolling as other proposals like parameter decorators (which is already stage 1) have a dependency on this. |
| 15:24 | <rbuckton> | I'll break out the hoisting discussion to a separate topic that we can skip if this doesn't advance to Stage 1. |
| 16:07 | <littledan> | I think 60 minutes is probably a good upper bound for any particular presentation, because you will just have a drop-off in attention and interest over time. (And it isn’t a good idea to work around that ceiling by breaking things into multiple agenda items, for the same reason). At the same time, I do think it would be good to introduce the hoisting topic as well as Ron’s preferred conclusion—I think that part should be able to fit in under 15 minutes (just to state the problem and have a brief discussion, to make sure everyone understands; drawing a conclusion would happen in a future meeting) |
| 17:23 | <rbuckton> | I've updated the timebox, though I'd still prefer to get a jump start on the discussion if the proposal advances to stage 1. We've already had a number of discussions about this in plenary since Decorators was first proposed, with no clear outcome. This isn't exactly a net new topic, though there may be new voices joining the dialogue. My hope is that the numerous prior discussions we've already had are a good indicator that this proposal should at least get stage 1 to continue examining the problem, but in a more focused way. |
| 21:12 | <rbuckton> | Luca Casonato, guybedford On the agenda it says ESM Phase Imports for Stage 1 but also has its stage already marked as 1. Is that a typo? |