| 00:38 | <rkirsling> | we would pay attention to it, via the agenda |
| 00:39 | <rkirsling> | and then following the meeting it would either be Stage 1 or Already-Presented Stage 0 |
| 01:19 | <rkirsling> | plus like, the proposals listed on that page without a last presented date aren't even on an agenda in the first place. Why are they there at all? |
| 01:39 | <ljharb> | sure they are. we just don't know the last presented date because they predate when i started tracking that |
| 01:40 | <ljharb> | and the source of truth for proposals is "the proposals repo". it should never be "the agenda, the meeting, and the proposals repo" - that's 3 instead of 2 sources of truth, which seems universally and objectively worse? |
| 02:30 | <rkirsling> | ? |
| 02:33 | <rkirsling> | there are only three proposals there that are that old (and they could be indicated as such); the other six have no such justification |
| 02:35 | <rkirsling> | the point is that you fundamentally cannot have a source of truth for "literally any idea ever", so "already-presented stage 0" (or "active stage 0", if you prefer?) would be the best you could do. if you simply want to put the thing on the list prior to the meeting instead of after, that would be a very minor point of contention. |
| 03:09 | <ljharb> | that's how i already do it - it goes on the list either when it goes on an agenda, or when it's presented at a meeting. |
| 03:10 | <ljharb> | the 9 proposals without that date predate ES6, and were presented |
| 03:10 | <ljharb> | ah i guess there's 3 of them that are newer, and i'm not sure why those don't have a date |
| 03:12 | <ljharb> | either way, the discriminator for when a proposal matters has always effectively been basically "when it gets a champion", and nobody really thinks about proposals having a stage that don't have one. most of those the authors say are "stage -1", even tho that's not a thing, i assume because they recognize that without a champion, their proposal isn't really a thing |
| 03:12 | <ljharb> | the stage process seems like it was written assuming that there wouldn't be a champion til the committee discussed the idea, but in practice that has never happened (since the end of 2014, at least) - everything discussed was brought by a champion |
| 03:22 | <rkirsling> | but like, this discussion started because you yourself are using the term stage -1 for https://github.com/ljharb/proposal-error-stack-accessor, yes? |
| 03:23 | <rkirsling> | which suggests that we have a terminological problem to address, which seems like it could boil down to not titling a page "Stage 0 Proposals" such that it looks as if stage 0 were something to be earned |
| 15:49 | <Chris de Almeida> | I feel like the introductory text on the page disambiguates that though (?) |
| 15:50 | <Chris de Almeida> | anyhow, based on all of the above, I suggest we abandon the concept of "stage -1". there are hardly any references to it either |
| 15:54 | <Chris de Almeida> | https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/pull/160 |
| 16:45 | <ljharb> | I think it's not something we can abandon because we've never actually had it. the same community that already understands stage numbers such that we needed "2.7" also knows what -1 means, and doesn't think any random idea is 0 |
| 16:45 | <ljharb> | imo we'd be better off adopting -1 and adding criteria to 0, or doing nothing. |
| 16:49 | <ljharb> | also i invite you to consider the wisdom of the ages wrt stage 0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIifi4tP4pM&t=47s |
| 19:37 | <littledan> | well, I think either convention is valid, and we just need agreement among us to do one or the other |
| 19:37 | <littledan> | what is not good is just disagreeing among ourselves and different people using numbers differently from each other |
| 19:54 | <ljharb> | sure. but it doesn't actually matter in this case, because as soon as it's in a meeting, it's got an agreed upon stage number |
| 19:54 | <ljharb> | so all of this long discussion is kind of a waste of time :-p |
| 20:44 | <littledan> | I'm happy about this PR, and presumably we'll change how we talk about Stage 0/-1 in places like discourse (by always using stage 0 instead) |
| 20:45 | <Chris de Almeida> | The Stage That Must Not Be Named |
| 20:45 | <littledan> | no, it is named: Stage 0! |
| 20:45 | <Chris de Almeida> | ...as the prophecy foretold |
| 20:46 | <shu> | how is this conversation still going |
| 20:47 | <littledan> | I think we're done, sorry |