fixes #360: change agenda format to be tabular and ordered by stage #374
Conversation
|
I've also changed the "how we work" timebox to 15 minutes (according to this comment) and added the required PR link for a proposal asking for stage 4 (@mathiasbynens). |
|
Looks like my two open-ended discussions (which deserve to be sorted to the end) dropped off this PR: |
2018/05.md
Outdated
| @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ Supporting materials includes slides, a link to the proposal repository, a link | |||
| 1. Overview of communication tools (Brian Terlson) | |||
| 1. Find volunteers for note taking | |||
| 1. Adoption of the agenda | |||
| 1. Adopting a fairly minor change to agenda format ([#360](https://github.com/tc39/agendas/issues/360)) (Michael Ficarra, Daniel Ehrenberg) (15m) | |||
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
2018/05.md
Outdated
| | timebox | topic | presenter | | ||
| |:-------:|-------|-----------| | ||
| | 15m | [2019](https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/130)/2020 meeting scheduling update | Daniel Ehrenberg | | ||
| | 15m | Update to the How We Work Documentation project and [Website](https://github.com/tc39/tc39-web-draft) | yulia (@codehag) | |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
2018/05.md
Outdated
| | stage | timebox | topic | presenter | | ||
| |:-----:|:-------:|-------|-----------| | ||
| | 3 | 15m | [Optional catch binding](https://tc39.github.io/proposal-optional-catch-binding/) for stage 4 ([#1185](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1185)) | Michael Ficarra | | ||
| | 3 | 15m | [ECMAScript ⊃ JSON](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-json-superset) for Stage 4 ([#1188](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1188)) | Mathias Bynens | |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First I hear of this requirement. Thanks, @michaelficarra!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mathiasbynens Having the PR open is the stage 4 requirement. Linking to it from the agenda is just proposed in #311 for now, as @ljharb points out. Sorry, my wording was ambiguous.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That issue is still open though. If we are actually requiring this now, let’s close it and add a reminder/note to the agenda template.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suffice to say it's not a requirement yet, but it's still useful to do :-) your suggestion is one way to resolve #311 indeed.
| @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Deadline for advancement eligibility: [**12th May 2018, 10:00 EDT**](https://www | |||
| 1. Such proposals *should* include supporting materials when possible. | |||
| 1. Proposals looking to advance to stages 2, 3, or 4 must be added (and noted as such) *along with the necessary materials* prior to the deadline. | |||
| 1. Such proposals *must* link to supporting materials prior to the deadline, or they will not be eligible for advancement. If these materials change substantially after the deadline, the proposal may be disqualified from advancement, based on the committee’s judgment. | |||
| 1. Timeboxed topics may be 15, 30, 45, or 60 minutes in length. | |||
| 1. Proposal-based agenda items should be sorted primarily by stage (descending), secondarily by timebox (ascending), and finally by insertion date. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the 4 times still be listed? We don’t want people price-is-righting their timebox times :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't mind a bit of price-is-righting. Whatever encourages shorter timeboxes.
|
Eliminating the ordered list numbering for all agenda items is really unfortunate—we've been doing a lot of work to "sync" agenda item numbering to meeting notes (including working through backlog to fill in agenda item numbers in past meeting notes). |
michaelficarra
force-pushed
the
GH-360
branch
2 times, most recently
from
09208a0
to
be480de
Compare
|
It seems like numbering is inherently brittle anyways, and we should always use some kind of name? (see spec section links, for an example) |
|
I don't quite understand the archival function of agenda numbering (I always end up reading the notes more by heading name) but I wouldn't mind preserving the numbering if some people find it useful. The table looks pretty but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I like the priority reordering. This is a pretty major change, but we have such a packed schedule that it's worth considering whether we think it's important to cover all of the short new proposals first or get through some longer, more detailed discussions about existing proposals. Thanks for adding it as an early item on the agenda. I don't understand why this PR does both the reformatting and reprioritization. We might end up wanting to land one without the other. |
|
@littledan I think they're related. Now that there's another piece of information in each agenda item (current stage) and it must be used in sorting decisions, a tabular display of the data makes that easier. It's not just because it also makes it prettier. I wouldn't want one without the other, and I agree with @ljharb that the loss of granular item numbering is not a big deal, since it wasn't ever reliable to begin with. |
|
PR updated as of now (2b7ef16) |
michaelficarra
force-pushed
the
GH-360
branch
2 times, most recently
from
685403a
to
8fea3ba
Compare
|
Updated again as of 1f89a60 |
Fixes #360. This is up to date as of
3f2d90e4a99b172b7ef161f89a60.