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

Consider renaming worth prototyping (or adding a label) #242

Open
annevk opened this issue Jan 13, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

Consider renaming worth prototyping (or adding a label) #242

annevk opened this issue Jan 13, 2020 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@annevk
Copy link
Collaborator

@annevk annevk commented Jan 13, 2020

As noted in #184 by @padenot and elsewhere by others, "worth prototyping" is not a great fit for things we're supportive of and already ship. "important" is the only alternative, but generally reserved for more important things.

Shall we rename "worth prototyping" to "supportive" or some such?

@annevk annevk added the policy label Jan 13, 2020
@dbaron dbaron changed the title Consider renaming worth prototyping (or adding a label Consider renaming worth prototyping (or adding a label) Jan 13, 2020
@bholley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@bholley bholley commented Jan 13, 2020

I like "supportive".

I've also seen a related problem wherein we decide we're supportive of some parts, but think certain specific parts are harmful, and then sort of split the difference with non-harmful (i.e. #194 (comment)).

It would be nice to also brainstorm better solutions to this while re-thinking the taxonomy.

@dbaron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@dbaron dbaron commented Jan 13, 2020

Do we want "supportive" and "supportive with caveats"?

@bholley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@bholley bholley commented Jan 13, 2020

Do we want "supportive" and "supportive with caveats"?

That seems reasonable, assuming we think "with caveats" is strong enough to convey "we think this is harmful now but believe the harmful bits can be excised with sufficient work". I think it's probably sufficient for practical purposes, but would be interested to hear other opinions.

@martinthomson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@martinthomson martinthomson commented Jan 14, 2020

I suspect that it will always be the case that we have caveats on support for any feature. So the more terse label is probably OK provided we document the fact that any spec, in any stage of deployment (including shipped in Firefox; including stuff Mozilla developed) likely has aspects we would rather be different.

There are cases that are truly "mixed" in the sense that there are good things and bad things. The question is whether we can find ways to split them.

@bholley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@bholley bholley commented Jan 14, 2020

I wonder if we should allow a mixed position? I worry that just marking something with known deal-breakers as worth prototyping carries the risk that the nuance will be lost and our position will be misconstrued.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.