search

tc39 / process-document

Document describing the process for making changes to ECMA-262
https://tc39.es/process-document/
30 stars 18 forks source link

Proposal repo should be a requirement #24

Closed hax closed 4 years ago

hax commented 5 years ago

Continue the discussion in https://github.com/tc39/proposals/issues/236

From @mathiasbynens

...having a repository should be a requirement, even for stage 1. I'd go even further and claim that every feature proposal that is presented to TC39 needs a repository of which the README addresses the requirements outlined in the process doc.

From @ljharb

If someone thinks a repo should be a requirement, an issue or PR to the process document is appropriate, but not here :-)

So I create this issue. 😀

ljharb commented 5 years ago

Seems like a PR, and an agenda item to get consensus on it, is in order.

littledan commented 5 years ago

I believe we've been treating this as a requirement in practice already, and have held things back at Stage 0 due to not having a proposal repo. Documenting our practices here makes sense to me.

ljharb commented 5 years ago

That's not been my experience. What have we held back for not having a repo?

(note that there are stage 1 proposals lacking a repo that were added in July 2019, July 2017, and September 2016)

littledan commented 5 years ago

My mistake then!

codehag commented 4 years ago

I think this is a good idea, as it will make our conversations stronger. Let's document this convention and also add it to the agenda template.

ljharb commented 4 years ago

Got consensus on this today; #26 is merged.