Add ⌛️ to denote late items #257
Conversation
|
I just saw @ljharb also requested a review from @littledan and @bterlson. I believe it's fine for now and we can fix or improve this in follow up PRs. |
|
Wait, asyncWait was added 7 days before (though, granted, exactly 7). What makes it late? |
|
Unless I'm mistaken, neither of these proposals are "late" according to any stated criteria (as of Tuesday), but I've decided to refrain from arguing this point unless advancement seems like a viable possibility. That said, you did insert your proposal above other proposals in the list (without a PR)—any particular reason for that? Do we have any process for deciding the order of the items? I guess that happens during the meeting, and the order of the agenda isn't really important? |
|
I had thought all the Need Consensus PR were grouped. They tend to get their own time period and are prioritized, usually.
…--
shu
On Sep 21, 2017, at 11:44, Ben Newman ***@***.***> wrote:
Neither of these proposals are "late" according to any stated criteria (as of Tuesday), but I've decided to refrain from arguing this point unless advancement seems like a viable possibility. That said, you did insert your proposal above other proposals in the list (without a PR)―any particular reason for that? Do we have any process for deciding the order of the items?
―
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@syg I believe yours was a few hours past the Boston-timezone start time of Tuesday's meeting. Needs Consensus PRs are all indeed grouped. |
|
I see. “Days” to be interpreted as 24 hours prior to start time in host time zone was not at all clear to me, nor do I think is a widely shared understanding. I am happy to be at the bottom of the queue. I would like to voice my opinion that this is kind of ridiculous. I’m sure everyone would appreciate a clearly spelled out cutoff time going forward.
…--
shu
On Sep 22, 2017, at 01:43, Jordan Harband ***@***.***> wrote:
@syg I believe yours was a few hours past the Boston-timezone start time of Tuesday's meeting.
Needs Consensus PRs are all indeed grouped.
―
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
I'm all for marking late items, but I'm not sure if these items deserve to be marked late. For now, I'd interpret 7 days in a slightly more loose way, to account for the ambiguity the first time. I remember saying a week; I don't remember stating a particular time of day. As long as something was put on the agenda by the Tuesday before the meeting started, I think that's enough given what was discussed before. For next time, we can be more explicit about the exact time, as proposed in another thread. I put needs-consensus PRs on the agenda because in the past we ended up skipping them. I wanted to timebox them, and in the past, when I tried to put timeboxed items on the agenda under other items, people objected, so I put them under the main timeboxed groups. |
|
See #259 for the thrilling consensus-driven conclusion |
No description provided.