> But sure, perhaps a "guidelines for use in production" section would be
useful. [...] having them there makes it easier for people to point out to
them the dangers (or at least, considerations) of what they're doing,
backed by a link to the document [...]

In my own experience, that might have been a useful thing to have a few
times. A few years back I didn’t have the proper context for making
decisions about what the consequences of using stage 0-2 features might be
over time. I came to regret that. Later I had a better understanding of
this and had come to feel pretty strongly that it was unwise to use
anything less than stage 3 for projects that are expected to have a long
future. However it’s not always easy to convince people of this, especially
if they themselves can point to a lot of stuff that actually advises using
pre-stage 3 proposed features and non-standard extensions.

Being able to point to a formal statement about what the stages mean not
just from the point of view of TC39’s internal process, but also what they
imply for a consumer standpoint — chance of ultimate inclusion, overall
stability — would be helpful.

Would it actually lead to more careful decision making? I’m not sure, but
consider the mental health benefits: having linked to such an official doc
during a discussion of these concerns would mark a point after which one
might say to oneself: "okay... well, one _did try_". Then, rather than
continue such a discussion endlessly, one may instead grant oneself a few
moments to stare out a window wistfully, accept fate, sigh, and think about
ponies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170723/8e3c91a2/attachment.html>

> But sure, perhaps a "guidelines for use in production" section would be useful. [...] having them there makes it easier for people to point out to them the dangers (or at least, considerations) of what they're doing, backed by a link to the document [...]

In my own experience, that might have been a useful thing to have a few
times. A few years back I didn’t have the proper context for making
decisions about what the consequences of using stage 0-2 features might be
over time. I came to regret that. Later I had a better understanding of
this and had come to feel pretty strongly that it was unwise to use
anything less than stage 3 for projects that are expected to have a long
future. However it’s not always easy to convince people of this, especially
if they themselves can point to a lot of stuff that actually advises using
pre-stage 3 proposed features and non-standard extensions.

Being able to point to a formal statement about what the stages mean not
just from the point of view of TC39’s internal process, but also what they
imply for a consumer standpoint — chance of ultimate inclusion, overall
stability — would be helpful.

Would it actually lead to more careful decision making? I’m not sure, but
consider the mental health benefits: having linked to such an official doc
during a discussion of these concerns would mark a point after which one
might say to oneself: "okay... well, one _did try_". Then, rather than
continue such a discussion endlessly, one may instead grant oneself a few
moments to stare out a window wistfully, accept fate, sigh, and think about
ponies.