<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Resuming this thread now that the POPL deadline has passed.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 24, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Iavor Diatchki <<a href="mailto:iavor.diatchki@gmail.com" class="">iavor.diatchki@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="">I am not really keen on putting these labels on folks, so my preference would be to not bake this into the process.<div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I am also not sure what problem we are solving though.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>That's a good point. The immediate problem is that I worry that some accepted proposals have important ramifications for Haddock, and we have done a poor job at considering these ramifications. We could solve that problem directly, by (for example) adding a new required section to proposals. But I see this problem as a symptom of the lack of diverse representation on the steering committee. (Here, I am talking about diversity in terms of interests/areas of active engagement, not in terms of identity/background. Diversity in terms of identity/background is another important problem, and arguably more pernicious, but not one I am addressing in this thread.) Recalling that we started this steering committee with a goal of diverse representation, I thought we should perhaps return to that, in the hopes that the committee can better represent the community.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I admit that, beyond Haddock, I do not have a concrete example of actions we have taken in which we're not representing the community. So you might say that I have a solution in search of a problem, but I do think addressing this would be good for our committee (and for the language).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>----------</div><div><br class=""></div><div>To summarize where we are in this thread:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I asked:</div><div></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div><br class=""></div><div><div class="">How should we ensure that various constituencies are well served by our process?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> A. By having shepherds reach out to community members external to the committee who can share their expert opinion</div><div class=""> B. By maintaining a list of constituencies that the committee membership covers (ideally)</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I said B</div>Vitaly said A+B</div><div>Joachim said A<br class=""><div></div><div>Iavor said neither</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Do others have opinions?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Richard</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Iavor</div><br class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 04:58 Joachim Breitner <<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br class="">
<br class="">
Am Mittwoch, den 24.06.2020, 11:57 +0100 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:<br class="">
> A. By having shepherds reach out to community members external to the committee who can share their expert opinion<br class="">
> B. By maintaining a list of constituencies that the committee membership covers (ideally)<br class="">
> <br class="">
> These can be combined, or we could do neither. (Right now, we do neither.)<br class="">
<br class="">
I think we have sometimes used A. For example with the proposal about<br class="">
Arrow something, we (or the author?) reached out the likely affected<br class="">
library authors.<br class="">
<br class="">
I am slightly favoring A (less formal, less process overhead, maybe<br class="">
more flexible).<br class="">
<br class="">
Cheers,<br class="">
Joachim<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Joachim Breitner<br class="">
<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a><br class="">
<a href="http://www.joachim-breitner.de/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://www.joachim-breitner.de/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div></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="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>