[ghc-steering-committee] Steering committee discussions

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

Great, thanks.

> Am 22.02.2018 um 00:54 schrieb Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I see a strong majority for keeping it this way.
> 
> I updated the section
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
> with Simon’s input and also generally made it reflect our de-facto
> process.
> 
> Cheers,
> Joachim
> 
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.02.2018, 09:14 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
>> I don't feel strongly.
>> 
>> But then I think we should make it clear on the home page https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals  that
>> 
>> * What is the committee email address
>> 
>> * That it is publicly readable (but not writable?)
>> 
>> * That authors are strongly encouraged to follow the discussion about their
>>  proposal (during step 5), and use to improve their proposal, even
>>  if it is accepted.
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-
>>> bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Manuel M T Chakravarty
>>> Sent: 21 February 2018 02:23
>>> To: Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>>> Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Steering committee discussions
>>> 
>>> I am sorry, but I am against moving the committee discussion to
>>> GitHub. This is for the following reasons:
>>> 
>>> * I don’t think, we will gain anything by moving to GitHub. Nothing is
>>> lost on the email list. The proposal author and anybody else can
>>> follow along as this is a public list.
>>> 
>>> * Proposals have a life cycle: writing, public commenting, refinement,
>>> and finally committee discussion (and then it may go around again if
>>> the proposal needs to be revised). Having the public, collaborative
>>> writing, public commenting, refinement steps on GitHub and the
>>> somewhat closed committee decision process on different media makes
>>> the mode change very explicit, which is good.
>>> 
>>> * I get a lot of email from GitHub. Most of it I deleted right away
>>> (including most ghc-proposal GitHub messages). Having the committee
>>> decision process by email makes it clear when I need to pay attention
>>> (without having to consult GitHub ticket labels).
>>> 
>>> * The Shepard has an incentive to briefly summarise the outcome of the
>>> committee discussion on GitHub after the decision is made (if it is
>>> all on GitHub, everybody needs to wade though everything).
>>> 
>>> * On GitHub it is much harder to see which comments are new,
>>> especially if the thread is long, because there was already a long
>>> community discussion phase.
>>> 
>>> * The committee discussion may be interleaved with additional public
>>> comments, because anybody else can comment, too, at the time, making
>>> it even harder to distinguish the committee discussion.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Manuel
>>> 
>>>> 21.02.2018 00:58 Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Am Dienstag, den 20.02.2018, 11:19 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
>>>>> The thread below is a case in point.  Good stuff from Joachim, but
>>>>> not visible to the author or the world; result, lost insights.
>>>> 
>>>> actually, in this case, I did bring this up in the discussion on
>>>> GitHub; the author was not convinced and brought the proposal
>>> forward
>>>> anyways, so now I am trying to sway the committee instead :-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Suggestion: could we hold all the committee debase on the proposal
>>>>> thread, thereby allowing the author to chime in if need be?   There
>>>>> might be some messages we want to be private -- very well, use the
>>>>> email list for those, but my sense is that 95% are absolutely
>>>>> publishable.
>>>> 
>>>> This list is public, do not post private stuff here! It is just a
>>> bit
>>>> “less visible” and less noisy.
>>>> 
>>>> Having technical discussions on GitHub is a reasonable thing to do.
>>> It
>>>> will be more noisy, i.e. many people chiming in, but that can of
>>>> course also be a good thing.
>>>> 
>>>>> What changes when the shepherd kicks in?  Answer: the committee
>>>>> switches from observer (and contribute if you like) mode, to
>>>>> obligation-to-consider mode.
>>>> 
>>>> Correct.
>>>> 
>>>> Shall we still require mails to the list when
>>>> 
>>>> * A proposal was put forward
>>>> * A shepherd makes a suggestions, and invites the committee to
>>>>  comment (now on GitHub)
>>>> * The shepherd or the secretary observes consensus, and declares
>>>>  a decision?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> (This will actually make my life of assembling the “Status” mails
>>>> easier, but it will make it harder to determine consensus.)
>>>> 
>>>> All in all, I’m up for trying it out!
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Joachim
>>>> --
>>>> Joachim Breitner
>>>> mail at joachim-breitner.de
>>>> http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-
>>> committ
>>>> ee
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-
>>> committee
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> -- 
> Joachim Breitner
>  mail at joachim-breitner.de
>  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee