<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Point of process: is it allowed for me to participate in this thread? Most proposal authors would not have this privilege.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My own answer to that question is to generally allow committee members to participate in the discussion. The committee will know who the author is and that he is biased, and will take that bias into account when reading the author's comments. But I don't want to respond to the points below if that would seem like an insider's advantage.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, what do we think about this point of process?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 11, 2017, at 9:01 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty <<a href="mailto:chak@justtesting.org" class="">chak@justtesting.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Ryan,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am generally in favour of this proposal — it appears to be a useful clean up.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, I like to make two remarks on the process here — sorry if that appears nitpicky, but I think, it makes a difference.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(1) To keep the committee discussion smooth and quick, we did agree that the committee discussion is only on the proposal document. If any public discussion is relevant to the committee decision, it ought to be integrated into the proposal document (by the person who wrote the proposal) before the committee discussion. Specifically, I have no idea what you are talking about with Options (1) - (4) on that thread.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(2) The Shepherd ought to propose a decision in favour or against the proposal. This is the default decision if nobody on the committee disagrees. I think, this is a useful policy as it serves as a forcing function for the discussion. So, what is your default decision?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Manuel</div><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Ryan Newton <<a href="mailto:rrnewton@indiana.edu" class="">rrnewton@indiana.edu</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class=""><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Dear Committee,</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35" class="">public discussion</a> for <a href="https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/unbanged-strict-patterns/proposals/0000-unbanged-strict-patterns.rst" class="">this one</a> has happened, now for 4 weeks of committee discussion and final accept/reject.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In that public discussion, you can see on Jan 11 options broken down as (1),(2),(3), with this proposal being (1). This seems to have stopped in a weird place where there was some substantial argument for (2) and (3) in the latter half of the comments, but the proposal is for (1).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard, one bit that threw me off was this:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><i class=""><span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:-apple-system,system-ui,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";font-size:14px" class="">"we should require the bang even on bare variables, but that would break a lot of code I think."</span><br class=""></i></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Because that makes it seem like in spite of this cleaning-up proposal, GHC still has a basically inconsistent position on how to interpret variable-bindings of unlifted kind in patterns.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Discuss?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> -Ryan<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div>
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Joachim Breitner <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" target="_blank" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br class="">
<br class="">
it is by Richard, I just got the URL wrong. The right pull request is<br class="">
<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/ghc-<wbr class="">proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/<wbr class="">35</a><br class="">
sorry for that.<br class="">
<br class="">
Using this thread is fine.<br class="">
<br class="">
Joachim<br class="">
<div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br class="">
Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2017, 10:58 -0400 schrieb Ryan Newton:<br class="">
> Just to clarify, this is proposed by a user "winterland". I.e. not<br class="">
> Richard, right? In the process document it is the author that "brings<br class="">
> it before the committee" correct?<br class="">
><br class="">
> I checked and it looks like our process document does not specify the<br class="">
> means of our committee discussion. I propose we discuss this one<br class="">
> right here on this thread, which we've already got sitting in our<br class="">
> inboxes.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Best,<br class="">
> -Ryan<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breit<br class="">
> <a href="http://ner.de/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">ner.de</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> > Dear Committee,<br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > this is your secretary speaking:<br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/45" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/ghc-<wbr class="">proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/<wbr class="">45</a><br class="">
> > was brought before the committee, by our own Richard.<br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, just to rotate this role<br class="">
> > properly.<br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > Ryan, please reach consensus as described in<br class="">
> > <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/ghc-<wbr class="">proposals/ghc-proposals#<wbr class="">committee-process</a><br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point<br class="">
> > out<br class="">
> > debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees<br class="">
> > with<br class="">
> > you.<br class="">
> ><br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > Greetings,<br class="">
> > Joachim<br class="">
> ><br class="">
> ><br class="">
> > --<br class="">
> > Joachim Breitner<br class="">
> > <a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a><br class="">
> > <a href="http://www.joachim-breitner.de/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://www.joachim-breitner.<wbr class="">de/</a><br class="">
> ><br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
</div></div><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class="">--<br class="">
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner<br class="">
<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a> • <a href="https://www.joachim-breitner.de/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.joachim-breitner.<wbr class="">de/</a><br class="">
XMPP: <a href="mailto:nomeata@joachim-breitner.de" class="">nomeata@joachim-breitner.de</a> • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F<br class="">
Debian Developer: <a href="mailto:nomeata@debian.org" class="">nomeata@debian.org</a></font></span><br class="">______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" class="">ghc-steering-committee@<wbr class="">haskell.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-<wbr class="">bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-<wbr class="">steering-committee</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" class="">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" class="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>