2025-06-04 [18:30:22.0250] as we're working on the "if you didn't write it, why should anybody read it" text that may or may not go in the CoC, I feel curious to ask whether anybody has suggestions for how to gently express a similar sentiment toward colleagues [18:32:19.0678] who don't seem to realize the impression they're giving off by having a bot speak on their behalf [00:31:51.0189] I think that's actually a relatively polite way to put it already, if couched in the right tone. 2025-06-06 [15:22:17.0552] For anyone interested in the More Random Functions proposal, it's been updated to a Stage 1 version that cuts it down to just uniform random numbers and bytes. The other sets of methods have been split out to Random Collection Functions and Random Non-Uniform Distributions , both at Stage 0, per the Stage 1 advancement conditions. [15:23:26.0852] (And for that matter, Random.Seeded has been updated with the meeting feedback, and is ready for further review from anyone interested.) 2025-06-09 [15:40:01.0702] canadahonk: Math.clamp needs a summary/conclusion in the notes [15:41:45.0079] Michael Ficarra is doing his best to fill out conclusion but please review and also fill out the summary [16:06:31.0287] @tabatkins:matrix.org your random functions and seeded random topics are also missing conclusions [16:45:13.0719] i think tab is playing with goats [16:54:34.0304] we really need like a post-topic checklist/flowchart [16:54:42.0899] @mikbar-uib:matrix.org ^ [16:55:12.0278] we are always forgetting conclusions, assigned reviewers, slide links, ... 2025-06-10 [01:34:44.0221] apparently ISO 26262 is on functional safety in the auto industry [01:35:24.0892] (factoid from a Toyota presentation @ AsiaLLVM, do with it as you will) [01:47:33.0882] Does someone from Mozilla want to edit down the summary on IDL for ECMAScript for brevity and clarity? [01:51:47.0670] Also, a ton of these are missing links to proposals and slides too 😮‍💨 [01:56:38.0404] * (factoid from a Toyota presentation @ AsiaLLVM, encouraging making safety qualifications for compilers a thing) [02:00:26.0317] Since I'm seeing a lot of this, I'm just going to mention it. The "Speaker's Summary of Key Points" and "Conclusion" are different things. The former, Speaker's Summary of Key Points, is instructive for what goes into the official minutes of the meeting. It should summarize your presentation and any key points brought up in conversation after. "Conclusion" is the end result of the session—i.e. "this proposal has advanced to stage 2.7; will be reviewed by XYZ & ABC" or "The authors of the proposal will return at a future meeting after working out the details on [major point discussed at plenary] to seek stage 3 advancement." [02:01:06.0053] which document is this about? if there's anything missing, I'm happy to fill [02:05:01.0448] oh, maybe the notes document? I'll look into it shortly [02:20:42.0237] Right, thank you arai [02:22:36.0105] This meeting wasn't our best work in terms of documentation, but it's not too late! For anyone who presented, even if you know you already wrote a summary and/or conclusion, i strongly urge you to go back and review that 1. your proposal/PR and slide links are provided 2. that there's a clear summary of the topic and discussion, and 3. that the conclusion is recorded [02:36:28.0956] I'm still having trouble understanding the difference Aki [02:44:18.0231] Like, a conclusion of "this propsal is now at stage 2" tells me _nothing_ about the time we spent in the meeting. a summary that says "these were the key points brought up by the presentation. the conversation brought up important concerns regarding the implementation of this one detail. overall the committee was supportive of moving forward." [02:45:03.0406] i should be able to read nothing but the summaries and get a general concept of what we talked about in the meeting. that's where meeting minutes come from. [04:51:47.0802] We should document this definition in how-we-work because the question keeps getting asked. [07:02:45.0371] This may help in the definition of what is needed for the Summary and Conclusion. Overview: • Summary captures the objective or main topic of the discussion. • Conclusion includes the agreements, resolutions and next steps. [07:03:29.0690] More specifically: Summary • Main topics or issues discussed. • The objective or main topic of the discussion. • Capture the key salient points and decisions made during the discussion. Conclusion: • Decisions Made: Any conclusions or agreements reached. • Actions Items: Specific tasks or follow-up, who is responsible and any deadlines. • Next Steps: Future meetings or actions planned as a result of the discussion. [14:45:10.0911] oh apologies, busy for a bit but will do before end of week 2025-06-12 [09:56:23.0801] If you are interested in hosting a TC39 meeting next year, now is your time to shine ☀️ - [***2026 Plenary Scheduling: Call For Hosts***](https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/562) 2025-06-14 [09:35:23.0438] This is just an FYI: there's more unattributed transcription this past meeting than usual. I hope each of you can make a plan for future meetings to check conversations you were involved in for accuracy. This can be prevented by having more note-takers available. The more volunteers we have, the fresher everyone can be when they're helping record speakers. (So volunteer!) 2025-06-19 [00:17:37.0747] I'm preparing the full announcement of the November Tokyo meeting, but in case folk haven't seen it publicly: - TPAC is Mon-Fri 10-14 Nov in Kobe - JSConf.jp is Sunday 16 Nov in Tokyo - TG5 is Monday 17 Nov in Tokyo - TC39 is Tues-Thurs 18-20 Nov in Tokyo [00:18:07.0410] This contiguity is no accident. [02:17:47.0704] From the ACM policy on authorship: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/new-acm-policy-on-authorship > Generative AI tools and technologies, such as ChatGPT, may not be listed as authors of an ACM published Work. The use of generative AI tools and technologies to create content is permitted but must be fully disclosed in the Work. For example, the authors could include the following statement in the Acknowledgements section of the Work: ChatGPT was utilized to generate sections of this Work, including text, tables, graphs, code, data, citations, etc. If you are uncertain ­about the need to disclose the use of a particular tool, err on the side of caution, and include a disclosure in the acknowledgements section of the Work. > > Basic word processing systems that recommend and insert replacement text, perform spelling or grammar checks and corrections, or systems that do language translations are to be considered exceptions to this disclosure requirement and are generally permitted and need not be disclosed in the Work. As the line between Generative AI tools and basic word processing systems like MS-Word or Grammarly becomes blurred, this Policy will be updated. [02:18:03.0071] * From the ACM policy on authorship: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/new-acm-policy-on-authorship > Generative AI tools and technologies, such as ChatGPT, may not be listed as authors of an ACM published Work. The use of generative AI tools and technologies to create content is permitted but must be fully disclosed in the Work. For example, the authors could include the following statement in the Acknowledgements section of the Work: ChatGPT was utilized to generate sections of this Work, including text, tables, graphs, code, data, citations, etc. If you are uncertain ­about the need to disclose the use of a particular tool, err on the side of caution, and include a disclosure in the acknowledgements section of the Work. > > Basic word processing systems that recommend and insert replacement text, perform spelling or grammar checks and corrections, or systems that do language translations are to be considered exceptions to this disclosure requirement and are generally permitted and need not be disclosed in the Work. As the line between Generative AI tools and basic word processing systems like MS-Word or Grammarly becomes blurred, this Policy will be updated. [02:19:06.0442] this sounds like a fine policy for us [07:18:52.0804] I'll look into this further, but I'm reasonably certain we're beholden to ISO's ruling in this case, which is a prohibition on content generated from LLMs [07:50:54.0950] I will look deeper into this item. [13:32:06.0216] Given our spec travels through Ecma and ISO, the easiest default is to inherit the constraints of both. So clarity from you, Samina, is appreciated. [13:32:29.0091] * Given our spec travels through Ecma and ISO, the easiest default is to inherit the constraints of both. So clarity from you, Samina & Aki, is appreciated. 2025-06-20 [17:53:26.0501] can you link to it? [18:42:50.0800] what's holding up the merging of our notes? we should never have never have notes PRs open from 2 separate meetings like this [18:44:43.0186] * what's holding up the merging of our notes? we should never have notes PRs open from 2 separate meetings like this [09:56:34.0216] The Interest Survey for the November Plenary meeting in Tokyo is now available 🎉 - [**Interest to attend Tokyo in-person**](https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/563) Please state your intentions by 4th July so we can begin planning. お願いします 🇯🇵 2025-06-23 [21:06:13.0519] do you think it would be web-compat to make ArrayBuffers indexable, as if they were wrapped in a Uint8Array [21:06:23.0158] it is kind of silly that you have to make the wrapper [21:50:59.0520] it is silly and that'd be a cool change to be able to make. somehow i doubt it's doable tho - altho a `.at` method could almost certainly be added? [21:51:04.0166] * it is silly and that'd be a cool change to be able to make. somehow i doubt it's doable tho - altho an `.at` method could almost certainly be added? [21:51:27.0810] although either way it raises the question "how large is each item", since there's no associated byte size? [08:22:02.0943] `ArrayBuffer` is an array of bytes, and the methods that do exist on it (`.slice()`) index the bytes. Indexing would do the same. [08:56:12.0858] ah ok, good point