Dear team :wave:
we at the
@*WG-prioritization* would like to understand if the agenda template needs improvements. From time to time we change small details based on our ideas, but we're not sure if our changes really help or if the agenda needs improvements at all. So, in order to work more "on specs" and less on "sentiment", we ask you if after the next meeting (no rush, when time allows) you can provide an actionable feedback on what would you like to see improved in the agenda that pnkfelix copy-pastes each week.
In particular, we are curious to understand if:
Example: Niko last week noted that we were missing the RFCs nominated for discussion so from this week they're included.
Of course, no feedback means that everything is fine as it is right now :thumbs_up:
cc: @Santiago Pastorino
I'm absolutely glad about these summaries. IMO there doesn't need to be more details, I click through the link if I need more info
One improvement I can suggest based on a review of today's agenda: I think its useful, in the beta-nom list, to include for each PR its status: Whether it has landed in nightly, or not landed but r+'ed , or not even r+'ed. Also, its useful to separately point out if there is evidence of the PR being contentious from its comment thread.