Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update requirements for stage 0 and stage 1 on the agenda document #722

Closed
codehag opened this issue Mar 25, 2020 · 12 comments
Closed

update requirements for stage 0 and stage 1 on the agenda document #722

codehag opened this issue Mar 25, 2020 · 12 comments

Comments

@codehag
Copy link
Contributor

codehag commented Mar 25, 2020

We have been finding it difficult to review proposals that have no materials. Sometimes this happens with stage 1 proposals, as there is no strict requirement that they have materials present before the 10 day deadline. It is pretty rare that a stage 1 proposal does not advance, so having materials present isn't as crucial as for later stages. However, if all we have to go by is a title, it is difficult to prepare for the meeting in advance, or have preliminary discussions with champions. This in the end results in a less productive discussion during plenary.

How do people feel about changing the stage 1 requirement in the agenda template to having a ready repo with the proposal written out in prose, and a clear problem statement? This can be generated from the proposal template. We can help newer members adjust though mentoring.

@syg
Copy link
Contributor

syg commented Mar 25, 2020

Strong +1.

On mentoring: in the March 2020 meeting I plan to formally "charter" the incubation calls, which I think would be a good mentoring venue for newer members who might be unsure of what materials would be appropriate for each stage.

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 25, 2020

Since this is just "a repo with some explanation", and not slides, this seems like it's documenting the primary convention we've already been following.

@rkirsling
Copy link
Member

I too have wished this were already the case—let's make it happen!

@mathiasbynens
Copy link
Member

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 25, 2020

Ah, thanks for the history - in that case perhaps a PR to the process document is the first step, and then updating the agenda to match would be perfunctory?

@mathiasbynens
Copy link
Member

tc39/process-document#26

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 26, 2020

I've added this to the agenda, so we can get consensus on it next week: 205e270

codehag added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 26, 2020
@codehag
Copy link
Contributor Author

codehag commented Mar 26, 2020

I am not sure what we should do about proposals requesting entrance to stage 0. Can't remember the last time we had one?

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 26, 2020

I don't think we need to worry about it as much; if someone puts a stage 0 item on the agenda, with no materials, and not seeking advancement, it would be reasonable imo for the chairs to reach out and require materials, to ensure that our plenary time is well-managed.

@aadamsx

This comment has been minimized.

@aadamsx

This comment has been minimized.

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

@ljharb ljharb closed this as completed in 3f4f6bc Mar 31, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants