# kdex (7 days ago)

I'd be interested to learn why it was decided to redact a possible new name for global in the latest meeting notes[1].

Although I do understand that redacting the name minimizes its chance to gain more usage, I doubt that the impact would be significant; if anything, I think people would have trouble to think of this form of standardization as "open".

By the same argument, we could in principle redact any new prototype/global property, couldn't we? Is the intent not to cause a second "smooshgate"? What's the point?

[1] rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es9/2018-07, july-24.md#new

# Jordan Harband (7 days ago)

The rationale is in the notes themselves.

Yes, we could do so in principle, but it's rarely useful to do so.

If the impact is insignificant, then we made nothing worse, just delayed some information spreading for a few weeks/months. If the impact is significant, then this has a positive effect.

I'm not seeing the downside.