Ben Smith

> Your mention of builtin functions raises another nitpicky question, which is whether it counts for a code generator to support producing an instruction from a builtin function, but not...

> #236 Thanks! > When presenting a subject, I would suggest to write a small presentation (Google slides or similar) to introduce the problem, explaining the context etc. Ideally they...

Thanks, @chicoxyzzy. This conversation hasn't made much progress in the past, but I think it's useful to bring up again. Let's try to get something in for the April 16...

Here are the meeting notes and slides from the April 2018 meeting: https://github.com/WebAssembly/meetings/blob/master/2018/CG-04.md#webassembly-in-blockchain

@lrettig Sounds good! Feel free to send a PR to that document w/ with an agenda item, and who wants to lead the discussion. We haven't really started planning that...

This topic came up again in the [June CG meeting](https://github.com/WebAssembly/meetings/blob/master/2019/CG-06.md#discussion-process-document-update-for-clarity-what-are-the-requirements-for-each-phase-what-does-english-spec-mean-etc-brought-up-earlier-today). We didn't come to a conclusion about how/whether to change the VM requirement. I've summarized some of the arguments made...

We discussed this at the Feb 2020 CG meeting. There seemed to be agreement that we should decide, somewhere relatively early in the proposal process, which Wasm VMs are relevant,...

I agree for most polls, but like @tlively I think perhaps we could make an exception for phase 1 polls (AFAIK we've never had any objections to phase 1 proposals)....

True, although that was my mistake too, I might have noticed before merging #568.

> But, a small change in the specification itself? We could use some guidelines on what action(s) need a poll of the CG. Yeah, this has come up a few...