2025-01-03 [10:01:03.0763] __Nominations Requested! We are seeking two additional facilitators to help with plenary meetings in 2025.__ Please see the Reflector issue for more information: https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/548 2025-01-05 [17:43:23.0947] are there docs for suggesting timeboxes anywhere or are past meetings my best bet? [17:54:29.0814] * are there docs which suggesting timeboxes anywhere or are past meetings my best bet? [18:01:40.0154] it’s just based on how much time you think you’ll need [18:02:36.0731] also just wondering from looking at february's agenda, is there a particular reason you use stage -1 vs 0? [10:11:36.0723] > <@canadahonk:matrix.org> also just wondering from looking at february's agenda, is there a particular reason you use stage -1 vs 0? Just FYI, there is no stage -1. The first stage is Stage 0. It has no entrance criteria and it is self-assigned by the proposal author. See https://tc39.es/process-document/ [11:06:44.0953] By convention only, until it’s on an agenda with a champion it’s not stage 0 yet, otherwise everyone in earth’s random ideas are stage 0 [11:34:39.0649] Wouldn't "on an agenda with a champion" be "entrance criteria", which the document says there are none. An idea on the back of a napkin being stage 0 sounds OK to me [13:40:48.0065] yes, which is why i said by convention [13:41:14.0943] considering every random idea stage 0 makes the category useless, which is why the proposals repo has used the convention i described as its filter. 2025-01-06 [07:53:14.0191] You've asserted that this is the convention, and follow it in the proposal repo, but I still think of Stage 0 as not really a stage with criteria. When people refer to Stage 0, I think of it as a semi-joke, just a statement of it not being at a stage in committee. It can still be useful to link to those in the proposals repo, sometimes, and I'm fine with applying those criteria for this list. [07:54:52.0186] in general, I would like to reduce the places where we assert authority of the committee. Of course you need committee consensus to get to any real stage, including Stage 1, but I don't like it if people in the external parts of the community see something like "finding a champion so it can become stage 0" as some big important barrier/goal. [10:12:03.0786] what’s the point of having a category with no entrance criteria tho? my breakfast is stage 0. [10:19:13.0484] I see stage 0 as the complement of stages 1-4 [10:19:26.0126] * I see stage 0 as the set-theoretical complement of stages 1-4 [10:59:24.0453] the broader domain is, "TC39 proposals", so breakfast is not included :) [11:02:47.0585] I don't care if a rock is Stage 0 tbh /j [11:03:08.0132] i guess what i mean is, if we really don't care that literally anything is stage 0, why even have that stage in the process doc [11:03:37.0986] who said we don't care? [11:04:23.0558] * gotta call it something, no? [11:10:52.0979] A young developer approached the delegate and asked, "Delegate, what does it mean for a proposal to be at Stage 0?" The delegate replied, "Stage 0 is not a stage. It is the stage before stages, where all stages dissolve." The developer pondered this and said, "Then, is a Stage 0 proposal truly a proposal?" The delegate smiled and poured tea into an empty cup, letting it overflow. "Does the cup hold tea, or is it merely a vessel for possibility?" At this, the developer was enlightened. [11:21:53.0697] the cup holds tea [11:23:28.0741] The delegate laughed softly and said, "Ah, but does it? Or does it only seem to, until the tea is poured, spilled, or evaporates? Stage 0 is like the cup before the tea—ready to hold, but not yet holding. What you call 'tea' may one day be water, wine, or emptiness. So tell me, is the cup full, or is it waiting?" The developer replied, "Perhaps it is not the tea, nor the cup, but the act of pouring that matters." [11:24:06.0793] i want off this llm ride [11:24:12.0938] fair [14:22:34.0379] well, this is backwards: we were using Stage 0 as this informal thing, and then we added it to the stage process to help people understand what we were talking about. we should document it somewhere or other if we can't get people to stop referring to it. [14:36:34.0316] * well, this is backwards: we were using Stage 0 as this informal thing, and then we added it to the stage process to help people understand what we were talking about. we should document it somewhere or other if the term is in use. 2025-01-07 [16:31:29.0453] (not that i think this is worth trying to change the process doc) but i think what's actually pretty intuitive and commonly believed is that "stage -1" is the thing with no criteria, and stage 0 does in fact have *some* criteria. a large percentage of the community ideas in esdiscuss and the discourse describe their thing as "stage -1" [16:32:04.0619] (perhaps because in JS, 0 is the first thing, and -1 is a nonexistent thing, so things that aren't a thing shouldn't have 0, they should have -1) [08:13:25.0208] well, let's see if we can come to a common answer here; actively disagreeing within the committee just leaves things confusing. [08:13:37.0764] from my perspective, both answers are potentially valid, we just need a convention [08:14:43.0631] (this poll is of course non-binding/inconclusive, just to get a temperature) [09:10:08.0186] ***Reminder:*** The next plenary meeting is in 6 weeks time! Please complete [the sign-up form](https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/547) if you will attend in-person in Seattle. [10:38:29.0307] i mean per the process document it's objectively stage zero that has no entrance criteria :-) [10:38:53.0003] i'm talking about the general mental model outside the committee, which we probably can't poll the committee to confirm [10:44:01.0867] I don't think codifying further (including defining stage -1 vs stage 0, etc) would add any notable value [11:06:52.0521] seems like we have some degree of consensus on this definition [12:44:09.0164] IIRC there is the entrance criteria of "a delegate is interested in this" which may be a meaningful difference to -1? [12:44:59.0045] (Not suggesting that this makes it worth defining a stage -1 more formally.) [12:47:05.0416] * IIRC there is the entrance criteria of "a delegate is interested in this" which may be a meaningful difference to -1? (see phrasing around "TC39 champion" in https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/main/stage-0-proposals.md) [12:49:49.0618] Ooh that actually is a good point [12:50:04.0248] And how better for a delegate to express interest than agreeing to be a champion [12:50:28.0890] (Altho to be clear the proposals list wording there is my prose, not the process document’s) [12:50:46.0069] those are criteria to be listed there, not to be referred to as stage 0 [12:50:47.0955] which is all reasonable [12:52:57.0125] You could call "stage -1" the "unlisted & unscheduled stage 0 proposals". But to me that just falls out of the scope where "stage" has meaning. [12:53:14.0168] Yes and in practice that’s what “stage -1” means - a stage 0 proposal that doesn’t meet the listing criteria [12:53:22.0059] "Unstaged proposal" [12:53:25.0994] There’s a qualitative difference between “someone has an idea” and “the committee will listen to the idea” [12:53:33.0751] The current stage 0 doesn’t represent that. [12:53:42.0614] Which is fine, but it’s why people use “stage -1” [12:53:57.0994] * There’s a qualitative difference between “someone has an idea” and “the committee will hear the idea” [12:58:22.0476] What I think confuses some people in the community is that difference: Just because stage 0 doesn't have entry criteria, doesn't mean their random idea / Github repo is a "real" stage 0 thing that will be looked at by anybody from TC39. It's obvious if you know about ECMA and how TC39 operates but not necessarily to the average web developer. [12:58:29.0838] my koan above, while tongue-in-cheek -- was actually intended to express something [12:58:43.0095] which is that stage 0 is not actually a stage [12:59:38.0633] and to that end, a distinction between stage -1 and 0 is virtually meaningless [13:01:31.0289] if the difference between "idea" and "committee will hear the idea" is that important, I'd rather it be designated as `0.1` or something rather than move the goalposts [14:02:40.0063] > <@softwarechris:matrix.org> if the difference between "idea" and "committee will hear the idea" is that important, I'd rather it be designated as `0.1` or something rather than move the goalposts a non-integral stage name? don't be ridiculous [14:06:13.0708] stage 0.30000000000000004? [14:58:08.0065] is this conversation real [15:06:06.0583] Stage 3i ? [15:07:23.0523] this was real not in the number sense but in the "are you fr" [15:08:02.0909] "the magnitude of the proposal is 3, but it seems to be going sideways" (that's 3i) [15:43:08.0658] This place is not the Temporal Dead Zone... [15:44:43.0803] many people already intuit it has a meaning, which means it's meaningful [15:45:07.0788] * many people already subjectively intuit it has a meaning, which means it's objectively meaningful [15:52:18.0141] lest we conflate subjective perceptions with objective meaning [15:54:05.0166] i'm not sure how to define "meaning" in a way that doesn't base it on subjective perceptions [15:54:50.0074] having definitions for terms is a start 2025-01-08 [16:19:20.0606] reference cycle detected [18:07:58.0687] the fact is that nothing can go "for" stage 0 though [18:08:42.0792] I think if the concern surrounds the usage of the Stage 0 Proposals page, it would seem better to rename, or maybe even redefine, that page [18:09:29.0072] in particular, "planned to be presented to the committee by a TC39 champion" doesn't seem like a status that should warrant inclusion on a page other than an agenda [18:10:29.0400] it would make sense to me if that page were exclusively for proposals that "have been presented to the committee and not rejected definitively, but have not yet achieved any of the criteria to get into stage 1" [18:11:13.0269] at which point the page could be renamed to Already-Presented Stage 0 Proposals or whatever [18:11:56.0719] * it would make sense to me if that page were _exclusively_ for proposals that "have been presented to the committee and not rejected definitively, but have not yet achieved any of the criteria to get into stage 1" [18:12:10.0323] * in particular, "planned to be presented to the committee by a TC39 champion" doesn't seem like a status that should warrant inclusion on any page other than a meeting agenda [18:14:30.0771] * in particular, "planned to be presented to the committee by a TC39 champion" doesn't seem like a status that should warrant inclusion on _any_ page other than a meeting agenda [18:19:02.0268] * it would make sense to me if that page were _exclusively_ for proposals that "have been presented to the committee and not rejected definitively, but have not yet achieved any of the criteria to get into stage 1" [18:23:18.0374] * I think if the actual concern surrounds the usage of the Stage 0 Proposals page, it would seem better to rename, or maybe even redefine, that page [08:49:10.0343] > <@rkirsling:matrix.org> in particular, "planned to be presented to the committee by a TC39 champion" doesn't seem like a status that should warrant inclusion on _any_ page other than a meeting agenda why not? that’s the moment it becomes something delegates should pay attention, not just when it’s presented. [08:49:20.0131] > <@rkirsling:matrix.org> in particular, "planned to be presented to the committee by a TC39 champion" doesn't seem like a status that should warrant inclusion on _any_ page other than a meeting agenda * why not? that’s the moment it becomes something delegates should pay attention to, not merely when it’s presented. 2025-01-09 [16:38:54.0346] they would pay attention to it via the agenda [16:39:30.0629] and then following the meeting it would either be Stage 1 or Already-Presented Stage 0 [16:40:47.0621] * we _would_ pay attention to it, via the agenda [17:19:39.0766] 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? [17:39:34.0004] sure they are. we just don't know the last presented date because they predate when i started tracking that [17:40:18.0583] 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? [18:30:31.0432] ? [18:33:44.0136] there are only three proposals there that are that old [18:35:36.0431] and a stage 0 proposal is literally anything, that's the entire point. you fundamentally cannot have a source of truth for that, so "already-presented stage 0" would be the best you could do. if you simply wanted to put the thing on the list prior to the meeting instead of after, that would be such a minor point of contention that I don't know why it's being discussed [18:36:08.0417] * there are only three proposals there that are that old; the other six have no such justification [18:36:59.0208] * and a stage 0 proposal is literally anything, that's the entire point. you fundamentally cannot have a source of truth for that, so "already-presented stage 0" would be the best you could do. if you simply wanted to put the thing on the list prior to the meeting instead of after, that would be such a minor point of contention that I don't know why it's being discussed here [18:40:58.0710] * and a stage 0 proposal is literally anything, that's the entire point. you fundamentally cannot have a source of truth for that, so "already-presented stage 0" would be the best you could do. if you simply wanted to put the thing on the list prior to the meeting instead of after, that would be a very minor point of contention. [18:46:23.0766] * and a stage 0 proposal is literally anything, that's the entire point. you fundamentally cannot have a source of truth for that, so "already-presented stage 0" (or "_active_ stage 0", I guess?) would be the best you could do. if you simply wanted to put the thing on the list prior to the meeting instead of after, that would be a very minor point of contention. [18:46:46.0984] * and a stage 0 proposal is literally anything, that's the entire point. you fundamentally cannot have a source of truth for that, so "already-presented stage 0" (or "_active_ stage 0", if you want?) would be the best you could do. if you simply wanted to put the thing on the list prior to the meeting instead of after, that would be a very minor point of contention. [19:01:38.0595] * there are only three proposals there that are that old (and they could be indicated as such); the other six have no such justification [19:06:17.0534] * 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. [19:09:32.0602] 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. [19:10:20.0772] the 9 proposals without that date predate ES6 [19:10:24.0093] * the 9 proposals without that date predate ES6, and were presented [19:10:54.0440] ah i guess there's 3 of them that are newer, and i'm not sure why those don't have a date [19:12:10.0901] 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 [19:12:54.0925] 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 [19:22:43.0601] but like, this discussion started because you yourself are using the term `stage -1` for https://github.com/ljharb/proposal-error-stack-accessor, yes? [19:23:58.0263] which suggests that we have a terminological problem to address, which seems like it could boil down to not having a page titled Stage 0 Proposals which makes it look as if stage 0 were something to be earned [19:25:33.0133] * 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 [07:49:21.0427] I feel like the introductory text on the page disambiguates that though (?) [07:50:25.0390] anyhow, based on all of the above, I suggest we abandon the concept of "stage -1". there are hardly any references to it either [07:54:03.0250] https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/pull/160 [08:45:44.0261] 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 [08:45:58.0622] imo we'd be better off adopting -1 and adding criteria to 0, or doing nothing. [08:49:24.0737] also i invite you to consider the wisdom of the ages wrt stage 0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIifi4tP4pM&t=47s [11:37:02.0384] well, I think either convention is valid, and we just need agreement among us to do one or the other [11:37:33.0333] what is not good is just disagreeing among ourselves and different people using numbers differently from each other [11:54:03.0214] 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 [11:54:11.0102] so all of this long discussion is kind of a waste of time :-p [12:44:00.0165] 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) [12:45:16.0194] _The Stage That Must Not Be Named_ [12:45:30.0231] no, it is named: Stage 0! [12:45:45.0610] ...as the prophecy foretold [12:46:53.0238] how is this conversation still going [12:47:02.0893] I think we're done, sorry 2025-01-10 [16:02:39.0408] This episode is done. 2025-01-14 [11:58:37.0147] I wish I had write permission in the editors channel just to say that "actually, there is a single GlobalSymbolsRegistry" in the whole world and we all friendly share exactly the same registered symbols [11:58:43.0647] * I wish I had write permission in the editors channel just to say that "actually, there is a single GlobalSymbolsRegistry in the whole world and we all friendly share exactly the same registered symbols" [12:01:00.0978] and this is why we don't +v everyone in the editors channel 😜