Names for small functions - Time for codified community principles?

[Robert Marlow]

By the way, the proper way I should have suggested this is by writing a
proposal with some suggested principles, but I don't feel I'm enough of
an aged haskell library hacker to start making calls like that. If
someone more experienced thinks this is a good idea it would be good if
they could have a crack at writing up some principles or suggest some to
me to write up.


On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:20 +0900, Robert Marlow wrote:
> I empathise with what you're saying, John, but I think it will fall upon
> deaf ears unless the community agrees that your points support one of
> the goals of the Haskell libraries project.
> 
> I wrote some notes on formal consensus for free software projects a
> while ago ( http://bobstopper.livejournal.com/22939.html ) and I think
> one of my points is applicable here: without codified community
> principles, it's difficult to identify what is and isn't relevant
> discussion for the project. Clearly you consider the discussion relevent
> while many others don't.
> 
> I think your points would carry much more weight if you didn't have to
> argue your case every time you raised them. For this, having a set of
> principles which the community adheres to would be a boon: it could
> clearly articulate whether the community as a whole is ultimately
> concerned with the proliferation of names for small functions thus
> ensuring that such proposals in future are judged in a consistent way
> without the need for superfluous discussion.
> 
> I'd suggest this community write up a simple set of principles with
> measures to allow future proposals to ammend the principles. Start with
> the smaller, more obvious principles and later move to add principles
> that deal with the issues such as Jon is raising.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 18:52 +0000, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> > I simply don't have the stamina to follow up to all the
> > objections to my messages. I'm posting this here in the
> > thread because it's a convenient point, not because Robert's
> > message troubles me particularly.
> 
-- 
Robert Marlow <bobstopper at bobturf.org>