| 01:15 | <DerekNonGeneric> | settled on mozilla.org account bc impossible to put your account into an unrecoverable state (if you get locked out of matrix.org accounts, there is no recourse) |
| 02:22 | <DerekNonGeneric> | it has occurred to me that i can champion my own proposals seeing as how i am in two orgs that are ecma members |
| 02:36 | <DerekNonGeneric> | it would be nice if someone can clarify exactly what deliverables are necessary for a proposal |
| 02:36 | <DerekNonGeneric> | specifically, do i need a keynote presentation as well as a repo w/ explainer text? |
| 02:38 | <bakkot> | DerekNonGeneric: https://tc39.es/process-document/ |
| 02:39 | <bakkot> | not mentioned here, but stage advancement (past 0) requires consensus, which can only be achieved at plenary, so you will also need to make a presentation at a meeting sufficient to convince people it's worth pursuing |
| 02:39 | <bakkot> | strictly speaking no slideshow is required for this, and for very simple proposals going for stage 1 people don't always bother, but it's a good idea |
| 02:40 | <bakkot> | for advancement, you'll also need to add your proposal along with the supporting materials to the agenda for a meeting at least ten days before the start of that meeting |
| 02:41 | <bakkot> | (each agenda lists the deadline for that meeting) |
| 02:48 | <DerekNonGeneric> | interesting, guess stage 1 is what i would be requesting seeing as how i have not learned any ecmamarkup |
| 02:49 | <DerekNonGeneric> | thanks for the tips bakkot |
| 02:56 | <bakkot> | you'd be requesting stage 1 anyway, proposals have to go through the stages in order |
| 03:00 | <DerekNonGeneric> | that's news to me (the accessible Object.hasOwn proposal skipped stages) |
| 03:09 | <bakkot> | it is possible to advance multiple stages in a single meeting, yes |
| 03:10 | <bakkot> | only ever happens for very small proposals, though, and it's pretty unusual |
| 03:12 | <bakkot> | basically the thing that happens is you go for stage 1, but have satisfied the requirements for stage 2, and after you present if people are sufficiently enthusiastic about advancement, and there's no major questions about semantics remaining, you say "ok, then can we have consensus for stage 2 also" |
| 03:12 | <bakkot> | I wouldn't recommend that as the goal, though; usually there will be major questions about the semantics. there are almost always such questions, for early-stage proposals. |
| 03:15 | <bakkot> | incidentally if you want to attend you will need to get one of your organizations' current delegates to open a PR to the admin-and-business repo with your details (which is private to delegates) |
| 03:24 | <DerekNonGeneric> | ok, i will need to wait for business hours tomorrow (thanks again for the info bakkot) |
| 03:25 | <DerekNonGeneric> | ooh it's Friday |
| 03:26 | <bakkot> | next meeting isn't until the middle of July anyway, so don't feel too rushed |
| 03:36 | <bakkot> | DerekNonGeneric: oh, also, I should have pointed you to the actual docs for how to champion a proposal, i.e. https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/blob/master/champion.md |
| 03:45 | <DerekNonGeneric> | super useful, thanks (had not seen this yet) |
| 17:22 | <bakkot> | Justin Ridgewell: any plans to bring groupBy to plenary sometime soon? (I ask because I needed it today.) |
| 17:27 | <bakkot> | hmm, I just realized there's actually a possible design question with groupBy, namely, do you return a Map or an object |
| 17:27 | <bakkot> | Map is more useful but more awkward |
| 20:24 | <littledan> | Let's generalize objects to permit any JS value as a property key to address this issue |
| 20:41 | <bakkot> | šļø |
| 20:43 | <littledan> | We can use obj{prop} to avoid the legacy ToPropertyKey algorithm |
| 20:44 | <littledan> | Obviously with [no LineTerminator here] |
| 20:46 | <bakkot> | We would of course have to add Object.getOwnPropertyNamesNoForReal, to avoid breaking existing consumers of getOwnPropertyNames and getOwnPropertySymbols |
| 20:46 | <bakkot> | Object.getOwnPropertyNamesFinalFinalVersion2 |
| 20:48 | <jschoi> | Property ānamesā probably would no longer be apt terminology; more like getOwnPropertyKeys. Though how prototypes would work is another issueā¦ |
| 23:22 | <Justin Ridgewell> | bakkot: Thanks for the prompt. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fY_jsD8bVZ8P95Mr7cEr3WdCbhMLdEQ7OS5hhLCbfJ4/edit |
| 23:33 | <bakkot> | Justin Ridgewell: re slide 7: it's not just Lodash, it's every language with a partition method: of the top of my head, at last haskell, scala, ruby, kotlin, rust |
| 23:36 | <bakkot> | (It is of course still confusing even though there's strong precedent for one choice. Just wanted to call out that the precedent isn't just Lodash.) |
| 23:38 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Iāll update |
| 23:39 | <Justin Ridgewell> | (Iāve never used a functional language, wasāt aware of the wider precedent) |