<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Hello Ben,</span><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it got buried among the rest of the e-mails.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span><div style="font-size:12.8px">I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how well it will work in practice until we try it, and we should be ready to change it if needs be.</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Some clarifying questions on the intended process:</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"> 1. After submitting the initial merge request, is the person making the proposal to wait for any kind of acknowledgment, or just move on to step 2?</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"> 2. Is the discussion going to happen on one of the mailing lists, if so which? Is it the job of the proposing person to involve/notify the committee about the discussion? If so, how are they to find out who is on the committee?</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"> 3. How does one actually perform step 3, another pull request or simply an e-mail to someone?</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Typo: two separate bullets in the proposal are labelled as 4.</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Cheers,</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">-Iavor</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Ben Gamari <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ben@well-typed.com" target="_blank">ben@well-typed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hello everyone,<br>
<br>
As you hopefully know, a few weeks ago we proposed a new process [1] for<br>
collecting, discussing, and deciding upon changes to GHC and its Haskell<br>
superset. While we have been happy to see a small contingent of<br>
contributors join the discussion, the number is significantly smaller<br>
than the set who took part in the earlier Reddit discussions.<br>
<br>
In light of this, we are left a bit uncertain of how to proceed. So,<br>
we would like to ask you to let us know your feelings regarding the<br>
proposed process:<br>
<br>
* Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the status<br>
quo?<br>
<br>
* Why? (this needn't be long, just a sentence hitting the major points)<br>
<br>
* What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if<br>
anything?<br>
<br>
That's all. Again, feel free to reply either on the GitHub pull request<br>
[1] or this thread if you would prefer. Your response needn't be long;<br>
we just want to get a sense of how much of the community feels that 1)<br>
this effort is worth undertaking, and 2) that the proposal before us is<br>
in fact an improvement over the current state of affairs.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your help!<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
- Ben<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/1</a><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org">Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>