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 :-) |