Committee feedback

Author: ljharb

index.html

@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ <h2>Development</h2>
       <ul>
         <li>Above
         <li>Initial spec text
-        <li><a href="#risks">Risk areas</a> identified
+        <li><a href="#risks">Implementation risk areas</a> identified
       </ul>
     </td>
     <td>The committee expects the feature to be developed and eventually included in the standard
@@ -171,9 +171,9 @@ <h2>Calls for implementation and feedback</h2>
 
 <p>When an addition is accepted at the “candidate” (stage 3) maturity level, the committee is signifying that it believes design work is complete and further refinement will require implementation experience, significant usage and external feedback.
 
-<h2 id="risks">Risk areas</h2>
+<h2 id="risks">Implementation risk areas</h2>
 
-<p>There are many potential risk areas for a proposal. Some examples follow, but the committee may specify additional or modified risk areas, or none, as it sees fit. Risk areas should be identified as part of entrance into stage 2, so that champions can be sure to address these as efficiently as possible.</p>
+<p>There are many potential risk areas for a proposal. Some examples follow, but the committee may specify additional or modified risk areas, or none, as it sees fit. Implementation risk areas should be identified as part of entrance into stage 2, so that champions can be sure to address these as efficiently as possible.</p>
 
 <ul>
   <li>Implementation buy-in: do sufficient engines (including, but not limited to, web browsers) have interest in implementing the proposal? If added to the specification, will all engines implement it?
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ <h2 id="risks">Risk areas</h2>
   <li>Usability: will the community find the proposal ergonomic/intuitive/useful?
 </ul>
 
-<p>Note that a specific risk area may impose different criteria on a proposal reaching stage 4. For example, if "web compatibility" is a risk area, then it will likely be deemed necessary for a proposal to be shipping in two (stable, unflagged, non-nightly) web browsers prior to reaching stage 4 - whereas if it is not a risk area, other implementations (nightly/dev/canary web browsers, polyfills, transpilers, etc) may be enough to satisfy the "Significant in-the-field experience" requirement. To satisfy the "implementation buy-in" risk area, for example, at least one unflagged web browser implementation will likely be deemed necessary for any proposal to reach stage 4.
+<p>Note that a specific implementation risk area may impose different criteria on a proposal reaching stage 4. For example, if "web compatibility" is an implementation risk area, then it will likely be deemed necessary for a proposal to be shipping in two (stable, unflagged, non-nightly) web browsers prior to reaching stage 4 - whereas if it is not an implementation risk area, other implementations (nightly/dev/canary web browsers, polyfills, transpilers, non-browser engines, etc) may be enough to satisfy the "Significant in-the-field experience" requirement. To satisfy the "implementation buy-in" risk area, for example, at least one unflagged web browser implementation will likely be deemed necessary for any proposal to reach stage 4.
 
 <h2>Test262 tests</h2>