| 15:58 | <mgaudet> | So uh, is there a policy of cancelling a plenary if the agenda is empty? (Or empty by some point?) |
| 15:59 | <bakkot> | People always put stuff on last minute so I don't think it has (or is likely to) come up |
| 16:00 | <bakkot> | But for remote plenary we definitely skip the last day or two if possible |
| 16:11 | <Michael Ficarra> | I'm sure there will be more added (I intend to add something myself), but this is by far the lightest agenda we've ever had this close to the deadline. |
| 16:27 | <Rob Palmer> | Please don't wait to add things to the schedule. It's better for everyone to see what's coming earlier - even if your materials are not ready yet. |
| 16:59 | <eemeli> | Going forward, I think we could drop one of the online plenaries from our annual cycle, and have 3 in-person/hybrid + 2 online. |
| 17:11 | <Chris de Almeida> | please add your input to the plenary survey if you have not already done so: https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/560 |
| 17:11 | <dminor> | There's an opportunity cost associated with reserving four days for something that ends up only taking one or two. This time around, there was a conference I would have liked to attend, but couldn't, because it would have overlapped with the Wednesday and Thursday plenary days. |
| 17:15 | <Chris de Almeida> | is said conference something that could be a conflict for other delegates? want to make sure it's on the constraints survey if so. (https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/559) |
| 17:17 | <dminor> | I don't think so, so I haven't included it in the constraints in the past or for the coming year. It's https://nerdear.la/, I'd be happily surprised if someone else was interested :) |
| 18:32 | <Rob Palmer> |
Everyone is equally welcome to update their own answers if opinions have changed over time. (Perhaps also write a note to say why in this case.) |
| 19:24 | <Ashley Claymore> | I don't think so, so I haven't included it in the constraints in the past or for the coming year. It's https://nerdear.la/, I'd be happily surprised if someone else was interested :) |
| 20:56 | <bakkot> | Does anyone have further comments on https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/pull/164? Can we land it? Who needs to press the button? |
| 21:09 | <Chris de Almeida> | there appear to be unresolved comments |
| 22:07 | <bakkot> | Chris de Almeida: Responded to the two editorial ones; the other two are basically disagreeing with the policy which we got consensus on. |
| 22:07 | <bakkot> | I personally think it's good to go now and people can add further refinements in follow-ups. |