►
From YouTube: Lang Team Meta WG 2019.05.30
Description
Discussed the idea of adopting some kind of MVP stage scheme
A
A
A
A
A
Well,
what
I
was
thinking
is
that
I
think
staging,
and
this
meta
meta
are
kind
of
similar,
like
specifically,
I
would
like
to
think
about
what
is
that
kind
of
MVP?
Well,
what
is
some
minimal
changes?
We
can
make
to
improve
our
lives
and,
to
some
extent,
we
have
made
a
little
bit
of
that
already,
in
the
sense
that
the.
C
Some
ideas
around
this-
we
don't
have
to
over
here
since
at
ones
like
in
one
device.
We
could,
for
example
like
with
the
artisans
and
that's
our
since
I've,
been
making
well
prior
art
like
future
possibilities
and
stuff.
You
could
amend,
attempted
to
fire
things
like
that,
and
then
we
can
incremental
work
with
that
to
get
where
we
want
to
get
we've.
B
In
like
the
NLL
RFC
and
a
bunch
of
others
have
already
done
this,
like
this
prior
art
to
doing
an
RFC
by
am
more
involved
process
than
the
RFC
process.
You're
not
allowed
to
like
have
the
process
be
less
involved,
but
if
you
make
it
more
involved
over
the
lines
so
like
we
did,
the
NLL
or
I've
seen
some
other
RFC
to
think
in
a
slightly
different
process.
I.
A
I
agree,
so
I
think
we
can
hack
around
the
system
in
some
sense,
by
saying
I
mean
all
the
RFC
processes
is
a
way
to
make
decisions
doesn't
say
much
more
than
that
and
to
some
extent
the
link
team
can
say
well
the
way
we're
doing
it
for
language
design
features
at
least
language
design.
Features
of
a
certain
complexity
is
through
this
process
that
builds
on
the
RFC,
where
the
RFC's
themselves
are
not
like
the
final
they
don't
contain
the
we
don't
expect
to
begin
with
an
RFC
that
contains
the
full
design.
A
A
I
do
think
it
has
the
problem
which
comes
to
what
central
saying
that
there's
a
lot
of
pre-existing
a
lot
of
RFC's
floating
there
and
there's
an
official
document
that
sort
of
says
what
you
do
and
like
we
have
to
kind
of
be
clear
about
what
we're
gonna
do
with
those
pre-existing
or
FC
is
how
we're
gonna
fit
them
into
this,
and
also,
if
you
are
Caesar,
ufc's,
are
being
opened
continuously.
If
they're,
following
their
own,
like
lightweight
less
complete
process,
I,
don't
know
yeah.
C
C
A
C
A
B
Think
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
if
this
so
I
said
this
before
I.
Think
that,
like
technical
solutions
like
changing
the
tooling
and
changing
and
making
the
process
more
complicated,
will
not
be
the
only
fix
here
and
I'm
wary
of
introducing
one
without
a
like
a
technical
fix
without
a
social
fix.
B
A
Maybe
we
should
talk
a
little
about
what
you
mean
by
social
fix
I
mean
my
view
has
been,
and
I
still
been,
that
I
think
we
will,
if
we
can
form
kind
of
a
better
notion
of
working
groups
and
a
staging
process.
I
think
we
are
having
a
social
fix
like
I,
don't
view
it
as
a
technical
fix,
I
view
it
as
a
social
fix.
A
C
One
of
the
reasons
I'm
suggesting
that
we
do
these
small
things
is
that
I
think
we
will
do
them
in
any
case
like
if
we
wanted
more
stage
process,
then
then
splitting
things
up
into
orders
and
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
is
something
that
we
need
to
do.
So.
This
is
something
that
we
could
like
fix
today
were
in
a
week.
B
I
think
okay
I
do
agree
that,
like
this
is
not
just
a
technical
fix,
but
I
disagree
that
basically
that
this
does
not
I,
don't
think
this
helps
for
create
teamwork.
This
adds
another
layer
of
abstraction,
but
ultimately
the
abstract.
The
abstraction
that
people
see
is
the
same.
People
see
that
there
is
a
team
and
then
there's
not
a
team.
It
might
not
be
the
link
team
anymore
so
like
to
the
Lange
team.
B
D
B
This
were
done
in
public
I.
Think
if
there's
like
a
working
group
sort
of
like
temporary
working
groups
being
formed,
you
would
still
have
the
same
effect
around
this
I
think
so
it's
it's
there's
something
that
and
I
think
that
stage
Darcys
still
helped
here,
but
I
think
that
they
are
not
the
only
fix,
and
we
should
be
careful
that
we're
not
just
adding
an
additional
layer
without
making
sure
without
shoring
up
the
foundations
to
make
it
work.
Do.
A
B
The
facilitators
thing
is
one
thing
I'm
thinking
about,
but
it's
not
the
only
thing
that
that
is
a
large
proposal
and
I.
Don't
think
that
we
should
start
off
with
that,
but
in
general
I
think
some
kind
of
more
neutral
sort
of
participation
in
like
there
has
to
be
some
kind
of
neutral
entity.
That
is
not
the
people
behind
these
changes
involved
here.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
full-blown
facilitator
thing,
but
it
has
to
be
something
that
people
trust
it
could
also
be.
It
doesn't
even
need
to
be
like
an
entity.
B
It
could
just
be
that
a
rotating
role
like
you
could
literally
in
and
have
haven't
tendency
in
a
discussion
to
ask
someone
to
summarize
the
discussion
so
far,
etcetera,
someone
who
is
not
on
the
Lange
team,
someone
who
is
not
on
the
working
group.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
like
there's
a
team
of
people
doing
this,
but
and
that's
one
way
of
doing
this
I
think
there
are
other
ways
to
do
this,
but
we'd
have
to
we'd
have
to
investigate.
C
B
D
B
A
To
me,
Manish
I
agree
with
what
you
said.
It
seems
to
me
that
what
you're
talking
about,
if
I,
I
sort
of
mentally
divide,
this
problem
up
into
a
few
facets,
and
one
of
them
is
kind
of
managing
sort
of
the
overall
process
of
how
we're
bringing
the
RFC
things
in.
But
the
other
is
kind
of
just
how
we.
What
are
the?
How
do
we
actually
conduct
discussions
and
how
do
the
working
groups
like
the
function
that.
B
B
A
B
A
I
think
that,
like
we
don't
do
a
good
job
of
we
make
them
in
the
middle
of
a
big
thread
like
I.
Think
in
the
we've
done.
A
better
job,
for
example,
with
async
await
discussion.
I'm,
not
sure
yes
right,
but
I
think
like
there
has
to
be
a
sense
of
we
had
this
conversation
here
was
an
outcome
and
now
we're
at
another
phase
of
it.
A
C
Think
it's
in
the
it's
sort
of
like
the
vdr
C's
that
are
like
need,
summarization
the
most
far
the
hardest
summarize
and
the
ones
that
are
easiest
to
summarize
are
the
ones
that
need
it
eats
like
a
thumb,
complicated
type
system
thing
that
people
don't
comment
on
because
they
don't
understand
that
those
might
really
need,
like
those
are
easier
to
summarize.
But
yes
right,
but
I
am
I,
have
the
feeling
that
if
we
move
to
more
stage
process
where
we
have
like
four
and
unite
do
some
part
of
the
rc1
timing,
we
are
more
incremental.
B
Like
I'm
saying
they
I
think
that
the
stage
thing
is
an
improvement.
I
think
that
if
we
pair
it
with
something
that
works
too,
like
a
specific
attempt
to
make
these
summarizations
and
stuff
work,
better
I
think
it
would
be
a
much
it
would
have
a
much
better
impact.
So,
for
example,
like
with
the
stage
stuff,
you
can
much
more
well
with
the
stage
stuff.
I
presume
you'll
have
like
separate
discussion
threads
for
every
issue,
every
like
medium-sized
issue,
that's
going
on,
so
that
makes
it
much
easier.
B
To
summarize
that
said,
you
still
have
the
problem
that
like,
if
you
think
about
the
async/await
discussions,
if
you
had
a
single
thread
on
just
the
syntax,
so
that
would
still
be
giant.
There's
not
many
ways
to
break
that
down
further
what,
but
what
you
still
need
is
something
to
sort
of
reel
in
your
eyes
that
discussion,
stop
it
from
going
everywhere,
and
one
of
the
problems
is
when
it's
a
team.
B
Member
doing
that
everybody
who
disagrees
with
you
will
be
mad
at
you
for
writing
down
their
opinion
in
a
way
they
might
not
agree
with.
A
So
the
concept
of
summaries
is
actually
mildly.
Flawed,
like
I'm
not
sure
about
this,
but
I
have
this
feeling
that
the
idea
that
I
will
write
a
summary
post
and
post.
It
is
inherently
a
why
wwic
feel
you're
like
because
it
has
wait.
We
we
should
sort
of
be
saying
I
am
making.
We
are
now
in
a
summarization
phase.
We
are
not
introducing
new
arguments,
we
were
summarizing
existing
arguments.
A
This
is
something
we
didn't
very
much
do
in
the
async/await
discussion,
though
we
did
it
some,
but
it's
partly
for
want
of
time
and
energy,
but
like
it
was
just.
It
came
very
late,
but
I
have
done
it
in
other
discussions
and
it
felt
very
different
to
say,
like
I,
have
a
summary
post,
I
I
want
you
to
tell
me
where
you
think
it
doesn't
represent
your
views
of
it.
A
D
C
So
one
part
of
the
summarization
is
to
add
it
to
the
text,
and
so
one
function
of
doing
somebody's
is
that
new
people
who
haven't
read
it
first
before,
but
just
coming
to
the
RFC.
You
have
to
meet
the
whole
discussion
like
if
you
jump
to
the
non-ascii
I
have
to
scroll
so
many
times,
click
sometimes
yeah.
C
B
This,
this
is
also
a
goal
of
mine.
I
think
this
would
have
been.
This
would
be
much
more
useful
if,
like
these
summaries
were
like
immortalized
somewhere,
that's
more
than
just
a
random
comment
in
an
issue
at
the
very
least,
they
should
be
linked
to
from
the
top,
but
you
can
also
put
them
in
the
RFC
itself
at
various
points,
once
people
sort
of
have
agreement
on
what
they
are.
C
C
B
I
want
to
be
clear,
like
when
I
said
that
I
want
I
want
to
pair
technical
fixes
with
or
like
I
want
to
pair
these
fixes
together.
B
A
A
simple
example:
I
feel
like
just
look
at
this
meadow
working
group
I'm
trying
to
do
things
like
produce
summaries
and
videos,
I'm
not
actually
doing
a
great
job,
I.
Think
of
getting
these
out.
There
do
I
think
this
conversation
is
really
like
being
by
the
community
as
a
whole.
No,
so
at
this
stage,
I
think
I've
created
a
lot
more
work
without
a
lot
more
benefit
and
I
think
this
is
what
Manisha's
trying
to
avoid,
but
I
want
to
add
a
few.
C
C
A
Things
yeah
I,
definitely
think
the
hell
things
one
thing
I
want
to
just
throw
out
there.
This
I
want
to
jump
back
to
something
when
you
said
about
having
separate
threads
I.
Think
boats
had
a
really
insightful
comment
about
this
and
one
of
their
posts
talking
about
how
adding
more
threads
like
adding
more
lanes
to
a
highway.
Basically
that
you
know
people
will
comment
to
fill
the
threads,
but
that
I
I
basically
want
to
push
back
on
the
assumption
that
threads,
like
threads
themselves,
I
think,
are
necessary,
but
also
part
of
the
problem.
D
A
A
C
B
B
It
ended
up
leading
to
more
or
they
made
some.
It
has
to
do
it
like
:,
something
that
they
made
cheaper
and
it
ended
up
like
making
the
problem
worse
because
because
now
it
was
easier
to
use
so
more
people
started
using
it.
So
then
you
had
yeah
it
had
something
anyway,
it
look
it
up.
Jevons
paradox:
it's
exactly
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
that's
why
I
want
to
kind
of
pair
it
with
something
like
threads
staging
is
something
I
think
that
does
not
a
case
of
this,
but
it
could
be.
B
Threads
are
definitely
a
case
where
what
you're
doing
is
pushing
the
problem
elsewhere
and,
however,
threads
enable
other
solutions.
Much
better
is
my
view
on
this,
like
if
you
have
threads,
it's
much
easier
to
build
solutions
on
top
of
it
like
staging,
is
much
easier
done
with
threads
facilitation
is
much
easier
done
with
threads
you
another
solution
of
like
just
locking
specific
discussions
and,
like,
like
Nico,
said
a
summary
phase
with
threads.
Now
you
can
say:
okay,
this
discussion,
I'm
gonna,
lock
this.
B
C
C
D
Agree,
I
also
think
that
we
should
focus
on
having
definitive,
start
and
end
points
in
these
discussions,
because
I
think
that's
a
problem,
a
lot
of
things
as
they
trail
off
or
people
start
from
different
assumptions
like
you
know,
for
some
people
they
might
want
to
talk
about
the
syntax,
but
for
others
it's
clearly
Stanton
stone.
So
there's
no
point
in
talking
about
that.
Everyone
needs
to
know
where,
starting
from
what
the
goal
is
towards
right.
A
A
Try
to
focus
them
on
what
the
purpose
of
the
thread
actually
is.
All
right,
I
feel
like
we've
gotten.
We've
got
a
lot
of
not
to
get
too
meta,
but
we've
got
a
lot
of
interesting
stuff
here
and
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
go
back
and
summarize
or
like,
can
we
oh
now
this
there?
It
seems
like
we're
approaching
on
a
sort
of
minimal
like.
A
But,
like
specifically,
we've
got,
we
definitely
got
a
notion
that
we
want.
We
want
a
process
that
includes
periodic
that
breaks
down
discussions.
You
know
into
finer
grained
threads
rather
than
like
one
giant
good,
and
that
includes
summarization
as
sort
of
part
of
its
structure.
Right
I
think
that
at
least
we
can
say
for
sure
that
seem
right.
C
A
A
Basically,
there's
like
a
time-based
notion
of
saying:
well
we're
going
to
take
this.
A
lot
of
interesting
conversation
has
happened.
We're
gonna,
take
it
to
them
to
the
like
Dean
rend
and
we're
gonna
produce
a
nice
summary
that
we
pose
to
the
community,
and
then
we
present
it
to
the
link
team,
because
probably
most
of
the
link
team
hasn't
been
paying
attention,
I
don't
know
if
that
actually
works,
but
it's
a
one
model.
I
like
this
idea
that
it's
something
we
do
I.
C
C
I
liked
the
idea
a
lot,
because
it's
very
useful
to
get
words
but
I
haven't
like
I,
haven't
done
any
summaries,
but
we
are
working
and
I
shouldn't.
Do
it.
Maybe
that's
that's
too
specific
to
my
situation,
but
it
hasn't
you're.
Basically,.
C
D
Think,
even
with
these
summaries
and
stuff
we
earn
already,
they
are
not
surfaced
correctly,
like
the
marketing
on
them
is
run
like
they
just
go
on
thread
or
on
to
internals,
and
then
they
kind
of
disappears,
which
a
lot
of
people
don't
end
up.
Seeing
I
think
we
need
to
address
kind
of
how
we
surface
these
reports
and
stuff
to
a
much
broader
audience
of
the
rest
community
yeah.
A
I
thought
it's
a
good
this.
My
main
thought
here
is
something
around
team
blogs
and
things
like
that,
but
I
another
same
I
think
it's
the
same
problem
around
the
compiler
team,
but
maybe
it's
useful
to
look
at
what
are
some
of
the
like.
If
we
actually
look
at
what
work
is
being
done
by
the
link
team
right
now,
I
think
it
is
basically
a
single
related
design.
A
A
And
the
reason
I'm
bringing
them
up
is
I'm
wondering
about
I
feel
like
it
would
be
helpful
to
try
to
get
a
little
more
concrete
about,
like
maybe
the
FFI
is
kind
of
a
nice
example.
I
think
because
it's
it's
or
whatever
it's
called
C
parity
I,
don't
know.
That's
an
array
I've
already
an
interesting
part
of
the
question,
but
it's
something
we
haven't
started.
Yet
we
expect
to
start
it.
It's
not
super
controversial,
but
it's
also
not
uncontroversial.
A
Sort
of
it
will
be
interesting
to
think
about
like
how
should
that
work
proceeded.
Also,
we
we
expect
there
to
be
a
you
know:
significant
number
of
people
sort
of
putting
time
and
energy
into
it.
So
we
can
some
things
I
think
get
stalled
just
because
it's
like
there's
two
people
and
they're
doing
it
in
their
own
time
and
their
volunteer
time
and
there's
not
a
lot
in
it's
hard
to
progress
is
slow,
which
is
of
course,
something
we
need
to
count
for,
but
we.
C
C
C
Calories
alright.
A
It's
easier
among
other
things,
is
it
I
mean
I,
think
just
different,
it's
more
familiar,
but
the
I
think
the
compiler
team
has
been
bad
if
it's
bigger,
I,
don't
know
anyway.
I
agree
with
your
assertion.
A
Well,
so
if
we
introduced
what
would
a
minimal
staging
I
I
want
to
take
the
last
20
minutes
all
right,
I
wanna
turn
to
I
I,
acknowledge
monisha
subjection
and
agree
with
it
that
we
should
not
just
make
technical
changes
without
also
like
trying
to
game
out
a
little
bit
ahead
if
we're
just
making
more
work
for
ourselves,
but
we
have
to
sort
of
start
somewhere.
So
if
we
were
to
introduce
some
concept
of
staging
I,
think
the
most
the
most
minimal
one
I
can
think
of
is
like
that.
We
have
a.
A
A
Examples
probably
tests
I
think,
but
not
maybe
like
Comprehensive
Test
feet,
but
tests
that
are
sensed
tests
like
showing
what
you're
trying
to
do
and
what
the
effects
would
be
expected
to
be
and
documenting
possible
approaches
to
solving
the
problem
and
I
I
note
that
I
am
NOT.
I
would
like
it.
If
we
can
that
make
this
less
less
of
a,
we
are
advocating
for
a
particular
thing,
as
we
are
trying
to
really
describe
them.
A
Yes,
I
would
assume
so
it's
a
good
point.
The
problems,
maybe
not
the
examples
of
difficulties,
although
some
approaches
may
solve
you
know,
but
yeah
you're,
absolutely
right
and
then
it
seems
like
there's
a
we
have
traditionally
had
like
I
think
there's
a
design
and
implementation
stage
which
I'm
intent
I
feel
like
we've
somewhat,
but
not
completely
separated
with
our
current
RFC
process.
A
But
I'm
not
convinced
should
be
fully
separated,
like
there's
a
kind
of
attention
here,
always
where
people
are
at
some
point,
the
implementation
ship
again
and
it's
sort
of
unclear
exactly
where
that
should
be.
But
this
is
basically
where
you've
picked
a
specific
approach
that
you
think
is
most
promising.
C
A
Creating
tests
exhaustive
test
suite
looking
for
weird
cases,
I,
don't
know
whether
there
might
be
a
it
might
make
sense
to
have
a
phase
like
we
do
today.
That's
like
oK,
we've
picked
an
approach
and
we're
gonna.
Do
it
a
little
bit
more?
A
A
A
Especially
because,
at
the
time
you
get
to
evaluation,
your
problem,
probably
not
too
keen
on
totally
backing
off
from
the
approach,
although
sometimes
we
are
I,
don't
know
it
depends
whether
how
much
work
is
invested
like
if
somebody
was
gonna
say
we
should
not
do
async/await
now.
It's
obviously
non-starter.
A
If
we
had
these
four
stages,
if
you
map
this
to
the
FFI
group
like
okay,
the
first
thing
we
should
probably
ask
them
to
do
then
is
try
to
like
write
out.
What
are
the
set
of
goals?
I
feel
like
a
working
group,
probably
has
a
take
some
ideas,
some
set
of
ideas
through
these
stages
right.
C
A
D
A
That's
that's
what
I
was
just
gonna
say
this.
The
interesting
question
I
tend
to
think
it
I
tend
to
think
we
should
probably
wind
up
with
RFC's
that
we
mostly
know
are
gonna
pass
already,
also,
but
that's
fine,
but
now
what
determines
well
to
go
into
one.
So
obviously
there
has
to
be
consensus
that
it's
a
good
night.
We
should
have
some
criteria
for
what
determines
when
to
go.
I.
Think:
okay,
there's
a
special
case
when
to
begin
exploration,
slash
form
a
working
group.
A
There's
I
think
that
should
be
something
we
do
like
I
think
we
sort
of
do
that.
We
just
say
anybody
can
explore,
and
that's
fine,
that's
of
course
true,
but
there
should
be
some
sort
of
link.
We
decided
that
we
want
this
change,
and
that
means
that
you
now
have
self
confidence
that
the
work
you're
doing
in
as
a
path
or
at
least
has
it
sire,
but
let's
the
better
side.
A
A
A
A
B
B
There
was
much
less
thought
put
into
that
from
the
compiler
point
of
view,
and
basically
this
meant
that
as
an
implementer
I
had
to
run
between
like
building
consensus,
ad
hoc
after
the
RFC
had
landed,
so
that
I
could
implement
it
and
I
think
this
is
sometimes
that
sometimes
this
happens
and
we
definitely
should
have
compiler
team
people
saying
yeah
this.
This
is
this
will
lead
to
the
kind
of
code
that
we're
okay
with
in
the
compiler
like
this.
B
A
C
A
C
A
D
A
Think
one
of
the
things
like
in
terms
of
the
overall
implement
ability,
like
in
general
I,
think
that's
not
a
big
concern.
But
if
there's
for
some
reason
a
specific
concern
around
implement
ability
or
like
like
that,
should
be
something
that
you
kind
of
identify
as
a
risk.
If
you
feel
like
it's
horrible
hazard,
but
I'm,
not
too
worried
about
that
and.
A
A
A
C
A
A
Except
some
things
we
don't,
but
there
should
be
something
that
you
basically
there
should
be
a
report
that
we
can
post
to
the
world.
That
says
hey
this
feature
that
you're
excited
about
is
ready
for
you
to
bang
on
it.
Here
are
some
instructions
on
how
to
use
it.
There
is
some
stuff
about
how
it
works,
and
you
know
test
cases
they
show,
though
you
they
don't
want
to
see
the
test
cases,
but
we'd
like
to
see
enough
tests
to
be
sure
that
it's
going
to
work
at
all
and
that.
A
A
One
one
thought
I
have
one
question:
I
have
is:
maybe
evaluation
isn't
a
phase
per
se
or
like
it
seems
like
there's,
you
might
do
several.
You
might
over
the
course
of
design
and
implementation
want
to
call
attention
to
certain
questions
on
a
regular
bit
like
being
able
to
say
hey,
like
there's
like
a
final
phase
of
iocean,
perhaps,
but
it
might
be
saying
we'd
like
to
know
if
people
think
this
syntax
is
working
well
for
them.
You.
D
A
A
A
Will
I
will
I
will
post
it
to
the
internals
thread
corresponding
to
this
Paul
right
yeah.
C
A
C
A
It
feels
like
that's,
not
there's
something
missing
in
this
list
of
things,
because
there's
sort
of
no
RFC
to
diverge
from
we
said
you're
entering
the
design.
There
needs
to
be
some
intermediate
step
of
like
well
I,
don't
know,
maybe
that's
what
the
evaluation
is
or
something
but
of
like
here's,
a
design
be
happy
which
what
do
you
all
think,
because
everyone
else
agreed.