| 17:16 | <jugglinmike> | Is there a formal policy regarding the approval of normative changes to proposals in stage 3? |
| 17:26 | <jugglinmike> | I can't find one in ECMA262's contribution guide, the process document, or the "how we work" repository |
| 22:22 | <ljharb> | i don't think there is one; but if normative changes don't receive consensus before stage 4, then it'd presumably be required to achieve stage 4 - but at that point they may have already shipped. it seems reasonable to enhance the process document to indicate that within stage 3, normative changes require committee consensus? |
| 22:27 | <jugglinmike> | Yeah, that sounds right to me. I can file a pull request and go from there (the process document has a good place to mention this, too) |
| 22:54 | <jugglinmike> | Arg, rather, "the 'how we work' document has a good place to mention this, too" |
| 23:09 | <justingrant> | If "how we work" is being updated, one good thing to include would be how the proposal-advancement submission deadline affects normative changes for proposals not looking to advance, esp. during Stage 3 where implementers are actively finding bugs and bringing up issues. Concrete example: we discovered a Temporal spec bug several days after the deadline. Should we included it in our "Stage 3 update" slides next week? |
| 23:12 | <shu> | i feel like how it works in practice is add whatever you want with an hourglass emoji to make it clear it's a late addition |
| 23:12 | <shu> | leave it to chairs to deprioritize as needed |
| 23:13 | <shu> | if you're asking about discovering new info after an agenda item has already been added and whether that new info can be folded into the existing agenda item, that sounds straightforwardly fine to me |
| 23:17 | <jugglinmike> | https://github.com/tc39/process-document/pull/32 |