"Redacted"

# kdex (6 years 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

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] https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es9/2018-07/
july-24.md#new-name-for-global
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180810/2061773c/attachment.sig>

# Jordan Harband (6 years 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.

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.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:27 AM, kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:

> 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] https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es9/2018-07/
> july-24.md#new-name-for-global
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180810/748e1d07/attachment.html>