<div dir="ltr"><div>I was just perusing the doc and after a flurry of activity it seems to be stalled in various places. I doubt we'll make more progress without someone actively driving it to a conclusion - several of the threads just end up in minor differences of opinion and nobody feels enough ownership to resolve them with edits directly. Meanwhile, the comments on the doc are getting a bit unwieldy to work with.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Still, I think it has been super useful so far - in particular the idea of using the warning system instead of turning off extensions is a really nice simplification.</div><br><div>I personally have sporadic time to work on this but probably not enough to satisfactorily drive it. Richard, I'd be very happy if you wanted to take this on; alternatively we can continue via email as best we can.<br></div><br><div>I think we should next<br></div><div>1. Resolve the categorisation (Richard's in section 2 vs. mine in 2.2)</div><div>2. Resolve the strategy (Simon's sec 3 vs. Joachim's sec 4)</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Simon<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 13:28, Richard Eisenberg <<a href="mailto:lists@richarde.dev">lists@richarde.dev</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"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">I'd personally rather spend our collective energies on landing the thoughts in our "Policy on Language Extensions" document. That is, work out any remaining points of disagreement and then move the document into the repo. In particular, if we end up in a place where we're content to add new syntax-guarded features without a new extension flag, that will, in turn, inform the GHC2023 idea.<div><br></div><div>I don't have the bandwidth to both work on GHC's type-checker (as I'm doing weekly, as Simon and I coordinate) and push such a thing through. Though if no one else wants to land that document, I think it's worth my slowing down type-checker work for a few weeks to do so. So any other volunteers here? Sorry to redirect us from the immediate task at hand -- GHC2023 -- but one of my principles is that it's best to work out principles (i.e. our policy on extensions) before specifics.</div><div><br></div><div>Richard<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 11, 2023, at 4:29 AM, Arnaud Spiwack <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Empirically, I don't feel quite ready to make a call for GHC2023. So I think that I'd favour a 3-year cadence.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Joachim Breitner <<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" target="_blank">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">Hi,<br>
<br>
Am Dienstag, dem 10.01.2023 um 10:31 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:<br>
> <br>
> It seems a very funny way to do it. I'd prefer to ask "what cadence<br>
> do we want" and then move on to discuss features individually. At<br>
> the moment I might think "yes, extension X belongs in the next<br>
> GHC20xx", so do I vote yes or no for X?<br>
<br>
Ah, I see the confusion. The question is _not_ about “the next<br>
GHC20xx”, but it is about “GHC2023”, i.e. what do we want to no. The<br>
answer may well be “no extension is pressing enough to make a release<br>
now”.<br>
<br>
A year ago we concluded to<br>
<br>
> don’t work on defining GHC2022, and the next update<br>
> will be GHC2023 (or later).<br>
<br>
and now we have to decide if it’s going to be GHC2023 or later.<br>
<br>
Maybe what I want to say is that by deciding whether we have GHC2023 or<br>
not, we are (implicitly) setting a precedence for what could become a<br>
regular cadence, should we not change our minds in the following years.<br>
<br>
<br>
> What do other members of the committee think about cadence? RSVP! <br>
> You are a member!<br>
<br>
I’m also curious :-)<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Joachim<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>
_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<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>