<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Thank you both for your responses.<br><br></div>@Simon: I like explicitly stating who has to take the next action a lot. I think the current phrasing is not quite right though - <br></div>in particular, it now says "The committee secretary appoints a committee member as shepherd, which moves the proposal to the <i>Pending committtee review</i> state.", but I would say appointing a shepherd moves the proposal into the <i>Pending shepherd recommendation</i> state.<br><br></div><div>If you want, I can just make the changes I think should be made (I haven't done so yet in case I'm misunderstanding something), but essentially<br></div><div>- I would shuffle a couple of the labels around to fix the above<br></div><div>- I would insert a step between 4 and 5 that consists of the shepherd giving feedback and deciding on their recommendation, before the actual committee review begins.<br><br></div><div>Jakob<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:31 PM Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</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 dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Jakob is right.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">I have updated <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/README.rst" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/README.rst</a> to be much more explicit about who is responsible for the next action. <br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Does that help? Further drafting changes welcome<br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Simon<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 18:39, Malte Ott <<a href="mailto:malte.ott@maralorn.de" target="_blank">malte.ott@maralorn.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">If your handling was wrong, then I have certainly erred in the same way.<br>
<br>
I can see where VitWWs interpretation comes from, but that interpretation has<br>
never been formalized anywhere.<br>
<br>
I think having labels to track of whom the next action is required no matter the<br>
size of that action makes sense to me.<br>
<br>
Our documentation only says this on the topic:<br>
<br>
> Eventually, the committee rejects a proposal (label: Rejected), or passes it<br>
> back to the author for review (label: Needs revision), or accepts it (label:<br>
> Accepted).<br>
<br>
It is true that this could be interpreted a bit more final than you intended in<br>
this case, but I don’t think it excludes attaching that label for smaller changes.<br>
<br>
Especially, nothing in the written process documentation says that the shepherd<br>
ceases to be the sheperd when revisions are required. Also, as we recently<br>
discussed a proposal can have a sheperd before the shepherd recommendation<br>
phase.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Malte<br>
<br>
On 2024-12-06 18:38, Jakob Brünker wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> I've so far essentially been using the "Needs revision" label to<br>
> indicate that the next concrete step has to be taken by the author,<br>
> regardless of how big the changes I suggest are.<br>
> After I did this yesterday, VitWW [1]commented, essentially saying it's<br>
> only intended for cases where major rewrites are required.<br>
> <br>
> From what I can tell, in past proposals, if relatively minor changes<br>
> came up during the shepherding phase, sometimes "Needs revision" was<br>
> used, and sometimes not.<br>
> <br>
> Is there a guideline I should follow, or that you tend to follow here?<br>
> <br>
> Jakob<br>
> <br>
> References<br>
> <br>
> 1. <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/621#issuecomment-2523299848" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/621#issuecomment-2523299848</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>
<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>
</blockquote></div></div>