Tracking issue for TC39 process requirements

[jamiebuilds]

Stage 1

• introduced to TC39
• champions identified (@jamiebuilds && @hemanth)
• initial explainer (Explainer)

Stage 2

• committee approval
• spec text written
• spec reviewers selected (@gibson042, @ljharb)

Stage 3

• committee approval
• spec editor sign off
• spec reviewer sign off
• received developer/implementer feedback

Stage 4

• committee approval
• implemented in two browsers
• write test262 tests
• merge test262 tests
• prepare ecma262 pr
• editor-approved ecma262 pr

[jamiebuilds]

Working on a presentation to bring this proposal to the October meeting: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Au8FP1xTuXb52d6kG1fxX5Cxl3J-02h3FAaq8tMEtn8/edit?usp=sharing

[jamiebuilds]

This proposal moved to stage one at today's TC39 meeting.

@robpalme Did I hear correctly that you offered to be a reviewer?

[ljharb]

Reviewers aren't needed or assigned until stage 2 (i'm happy to be one at that time)

[hemanth]

Did I hear correctly that you offered to be a reviewer?

It is Richard Gibson who showed the interest.