-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add May 2024 minutes #7
Conversation
Adds May 2024 minutes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few format and content changes needed.
Signed-off-by: Amanda L Martin <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
I posted the document "The Future of TLA+" on the TLA+ website and put a pointer to it on the site's News page. I don't remember if we decided to post a pointer to it on the Google group. I don't know if it would be a good idea to stir up discussion about this when there don't seem to be any need to.
Leslie
|
Recent blog posts by long-time TLA+ users [1,2,3] have raised the question of whether TLA+ needs a different surface syntax. This suggests that the TLA+ Foundation and the Specification Language Committee should more actively communicate their stance on this issue to balance the public discussion. [1] https://protocols-made-fun.com/consensus/matterlabs/quint/specification/modelchecking/2024/07/29/chonkybft.html /cc-ing @muenchnerkindl @muratdem @cnewcom for visibility |
Adds May 2024 minutes