<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Dear committee,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">See 
<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517</a> <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Joachim suggests that a prerequisite for submitting a proposal to the committee is that someone is offering to implement it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><ul><li>This would avoid us spending precious cycles debating a proposal that no one is going to implement.</li><li>An offer of implementation cannot be binding, so it is something of a soft constraint.  (An author could cynically volunteer themselves, without having any intention of carrying through, but we expect better of the Haskell community.)</li><li>We should stress that nothing stops someone creating a proposal, making a PR, and debating it with the community, all without an implementor.  Only when it is submitted to the committee for review and approval is an implementor required.</li><li>Joachim suggests that this replaces the (never used) "Endorsements" section.<br></li></ul><div>I wonder if a proposal that is accepted but not implemented (for whatever reason) should be un-accepted after, say, a year.  That would provide some incentive to get on with it; and the language context might be different by then.</div><div><br></div><div>I suggest that we debate the principle first.  I have a few word-smithing suggestions, but principles first!</div><div><br></div><div>On balance I recommend acceptance, with the above nuances clarified.</div><div><br></div><div>Simon<br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 07:50, Joachim Breitner <<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear Committee,<br>
<br>
I have submitted a meta-proposal to require implementors to be named<br>
before proposal submission, to focus on those proposals that are likely<br>
to be actually implemented.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517</a><br>
<br>
Because this is a process-related proposal, I’d like to ask Simon to shepherd it.<br>
<br>
Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in <br>
<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process</a><br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Joachim<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Joachim Breitner<br>
  <a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" target="_blank">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a><br>
  <a href="http://www.joachim-breitner.de/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.joachim-breitner.de/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br>
</blockquote></div>