Add note about normative changes & deadline #1073
Conversation
|
Converting to draft, pending plenary consensus. |
|
I've added this to the January agenda: #1104 |
|
I've added some language clarifying that the committee is expected to be more lenient with deadline exceptions for normative changes than for proposal stage advancements, to reflect what we talked about in the meeting. Let me know what you think! |
ljharb
force-pushed
the
ptomato-patch-1
branch
from
6b97d35
to
1b24376
Compare
ljharb
force-pushed
the
ptomato-patch-1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
105f5f5
to
6305956
Compare
|
I rearranged the first bullet point as per @codehag's last suggestion, I think all the comments have been addressed now! Feel free to take a look. |
|
looks good still; i think this needs a few more reviews before landing tho, just in case :-) |
|
This dropped off my radar, as I actually thought it had already been merged. Could I get a few more reviews please? |
template.md
Outdated
| 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, or else delegates may object to advancement solely on the basis of missing the deadline. | ||
| 1. Such proposals *must* link to supporting materials prior to the deadline, or else delegates may object to advancement solely on the basis of missing the deadline. If these materials change substantially after the deadline, the proposal may be disqualified from advancement, based on the committee’s judgment. | ||
| 1. Proposals looking to advance to stages 2, 3, or 4, as well as other normative changes to the standard or proposals in stage 3 or later looking to achieve consensus, must be added (and noted as such) *along with links to the necessary materials* prior to the deadline, or else delegates may withhold consensus solely on the basis of missing the deadline. | ||
| 1. If the supporting materials change substantially after the deadline, the proposal may be disqualified from advancement, based on the committee’s judgment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
may withhold consensus
may be disqualified from advancement
is there a substantive difference between these two? or should this language be normalized?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, missed the earlier ping. Looking back at the earlier revisions, I changed the above "object to advancement" to "withhold consensus" based on this comment.
The "may be disqualified from advancement, based on the committee's judgement" language is pre-existing, but on further reflection it's not really clear how that takes place — does the committee have to reach consensus on judging that the materials changed substantially? I think it makes sense to change something here, but changing it to something along the lines of "one delegate may withhold consensus if the materials change substantially" seems like it'd incentivize haggling over whether a change is "substantial" or not...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
imo it's subjective, so it's up to each delegate. If an individual considers it substantial, it is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- the
may be disqualifiedlanguage suggests there is some objective criteria that would disqualify something automatically. - agree with Jordan's comment
- I think we should just normalize this language, as it amounts to the same thing, AFAICT
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, works for me. I was concerned about opening up an avenue for abuse of the process, but that avenue was kind of already there.
Implement Yulia's suggestion of folding the part about linking to supporting materials before the deadline into the main point.
Co-authored-by: Jordan Harband <ljharb@gmail.com>
Implement Rob's suggestion for making the bullet point clearer.
See discussion in tc39/process-document#32 (comment)
This takes a "must" approach with PRs requiring consensus. If the outcome of the discussion is that PRs should be relaxed to a "should", I can revise this.