01:30
<rkirsling>
tfw the whole argument is "It's better."
01:34
<bakkot_>
rkirsling ?
01:36
<rkirsling>
just amused by a new issue on pipeline
01:36
<rkirsling>
it's not harmful at any rate
01:39
<devsnek>
well i answered
01:43
<rkirsling>
devsnek: oh they added a bit more info in an edit
21:13
<shu>
so how are we ordering agenda items when adding them now?
21:13
<shu>
descending, first by stage, then by timebox, then by time of adding?
21:13
<ljharb>
yes
21:14
<ljharb>
https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2020/07.md#agenda-topic-rules, item 5: "Proposal-based agenda items should be sorted primarily by stage (descending), secondarily by timebox (ascending), and finally by insertion date."
21:14
<rkirsling>
oh hey look at that, the rules are in writing
21:16
<rkirsling>
oh but just for proposal items
21:16
<shu>
ah excellent
21:17
<ljharb>
rkirsling: those i'd expect by timebox and then by insertion date
21:17
<ljharb>
we could make sure that's explicit in the doc, but it's what we've been doing anyways
21:19
<rkirsling>
I'd thought it was just insertion date myself
21:20
<shu>
i do think insertion date should trump timebox unless a tetris opportunity presents itself
21:21
<rkirsling>
motion to encode that as our official term
21:21
<rkirsling>
"tetris opportunity"
21:25
<ljharb>
the whole point of the timebox was that you get to jump the line if you're able to commit to a constrained discussion
21:25
<ljharb>
"by insertion date" was our pre-timebox sorting method
21:26
<rkirsling>
oh
21:26
<rkirsling>
that would make sense if it weren't for how poor we all are at guessing timebox lengths
21:26
<ljharb>
we get better over time :-)