<div dir="auto">There’s a lot more smart quiet folks who just need the right cheerleading and guidance out there than you’d expect. Or any of us can imagine. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The way anyone gets great at stuff starts from somewhere, and we need to seriously consider and work at making sure the ramp/funnel of participation and inclusion is as wide as possible. Current Haskell processes are not really setup to handle continuity and growth of participation as well as we should aim for. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The entire premise/ point of new efforts like the Haskell foundation is that we need to genuinely ask: how do we help more folks get great at their software needs, and facilitate Haskell and or ideas embodied thereof, empowering more folks over time. And this attitude should be reflected in how we evolve and improve and maintain core infra tools and libraries. </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:04 AM George Wilson <george@wils.online> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir="ltr"><div>I would be happy for the CLC to expand, assuming that qualified candidates step forward.</div><div>Twenty-two seems rather optimistic to me, since we typically don't see many applicants. Perhaps it can be an aspirational goal.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding a "Haskell Action Team", I definitely think more maintainers on some core libraries and more active members of the Haskell github organisation would help, but I'm not sure we really need another named volunteer organisation established within Haskell. Between the CLC, the Hackage trustees, the Haskell.org Committee, the GHC Steering Committee, the Haskell Prime Committee (if it gets going again), and now the Foundation, we really do have a lot of those already. I bet I have even forgotten at least one!<br></div><div>To attempt to form this new group, on top of expanding the CLC to twenty-two, would surely involve a significant overlap between the groups. Otherwise you'd have to conjure a lot more trusted, highly-advanced Haskellers with free time than I think exist.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>George</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 04:11, John Ericson <john.ericson@obsidian.systems> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>Carter,</p>
<p>It's not exactly clear to me where your two proposals differ? It
seems like Emily said "bigger CLC" with HAT, while you are saying
a separate org, perhaps with the CLC inside the HAT? I'm guessing
the idea there is to make the degree of control inversely vary
with the number of libraries in the purview?</p>
<p>> I do worry that some Libs that fall under clc atm / as of
the spring are likely to never have serious evolution /
improvement. But that’s a different issue. <br>
</p>
<p>Yes I would like to get into that at some point too. (Pithily
put, my view is chop up each library until its contents are
uncontroversial.) This is what makes me less concerned about the
difference between a bigger CLC and rings of orgs.<br>
</p>
<p>John<br>
</p>
<div>On 2/13/21 7:01 PM, Carter Schonwald
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">I agree with your articulated long term goal
points, I just worry that we’re not investing in the right
structures of organization to support that. I’m more than happy
to be wrong though </div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:03
PM John Ericson <a href="mailto:john.ericson@obsidian.systems" target="_blank"><john.ericson@obsidian.systems></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>Yeah I strongly agree with the sentiments here, and the
concrete measures. Thank you, Emily, for proposing them.</p>
<p>I assume some people will be worried about undermining
the prerogative of individual maintainers. My view is
this *not* a good reason to "hold the CLC back". A bit
off topic, but In the long term, I am optimistic for
technical solutions to make dealing with libraries and
versions, alternative ecosystems, etc. easier. Basically
I want it all---both collaborative ownership and
authorship, and healthy decentralized
experimentation---and I think that's possible.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>John<br>
</p>
<div>On 2/12/21 1:46 AM, Julian Ospald wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi,<br>
<br>
my opinion is that we should develop a zero tolerance
towards unresponsive maintainership.<br>
<br>
Contributors shouldn't have to escalate on the ML and
shouldn't have to request package takeovers. These
things are awkward and require more dedication than
necessary to be a valuable co-maintainer.<br>
<br>
The CLC should proactively scan for popular packages
that require new maintainer juice, contact the current
maintainers and call for help on the ML (whether
core/boot/something-else doesn't really matter to me...
redefine the CLC competencies if you must).<br>
<br>
I've had many PRs over the years that took 6-12 months
for a response. This is not an acceptable response time.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Julian<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On February 11, 2021 11:54:19
PM UTC, Emily Pillmore <a href="mailto:emilypi@cohomolo.gy" target="_blank"><emilypi@cohomolo.gy></a>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi All,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Over the past year, two things have become
increasingly clear to me as I've carried out
my CLC duties:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. The CLC is under-resourced. This is
evidenced by the fact that several maintainers
who are not CLC members have been forced to
step up to help take on some of the
maintenance burden for many of the CLC
libraries. Namely, `vector`, `bytestring`,
`random`, `unix`, and more. The current CLC
head count is not enough to dedicate at least
one maintainer per package, which is leading
to us all being spread thin, and the
less-loved packages are falling into disrepair
as a result. Couple this with the fact that
roughly half the CLC do not have these
packages actively within their maintenance
cycles, and we arrive at the current problem.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. The current set of "core" libraries does
not cover what is generally considered "core"
in the community. From now on, I'll refer to
"core" packages as "boot" packages, and
identify core packages to be those that are
have proven to be incredibly popular tools for
building things in Haskell. For example
`zlib`, `parsec`, `regex-base`, `regex-posix`,
`network`, etc. In particular, if any of these
core packages saw their current authors
disappear, or incapacitated in any sense, it
would seriously harm the Haskell ecosystem.
`cabal-install`, for example, requires several
of those packages as upstream dependencies.
Currently, we are dealing with this nightmare
situation where work is stalled across many
packages due to a particular set of
maintainers being very difficult to reach, one
of whom having disappeared completely for all
maintenance intents and purposes.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ergo, we have a problem. Thankfully, many
people have stepped up showing renewed
interest in maintaining such packages with the
latest crop of CLC folks, and this poses an
interesting opportunity.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My proposal is this:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. We expand the CLC from 9 members to 22
members such that we have at least 1 CLC
maintainer per boot package. There are a large
number of fantastic candidates already
available, who would be perfect for the role.
In fact, many of the candidates whom we would
ask are already maintaining these packages. In
particular, Andrew Lelechenko, Simon Jakobi,
Viktor Dukhovni, Dominic Steinitz, Alexey
Khuedyakov are already serving within this
role (and thank you for it!). Andreas Abel has
also offered to help take on one of the core
packages.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. We consider a dedicated "Haskell Action
Team" (name and idea courtesy of Carter
Schonwald) to oversee packages in the Haskell
github repo that can act as supplementary
maintainers for many of the core packages
contained therein. Currently, there are many
in need of help. `zlib` comes to mind, which
is currently blocking `bytestring-0.11`
migration work due to having no available
maintainer with the permissions to do a
release. This, in turn, is stalling
`cabal-install`. Short of taking over the
package, we would have to ask for an emergency
Hackage release if the neither maintainer
shows up to do it in a reasonable time frame.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is just one step towards helping ease
the burden of maintenance of so-called core
and boot packages. I hope you agree that this
is a good idea, and if we get enough thumbs
up, then Chessai and I will draw up the
necessary changes to the CLC remit and we'll
get started!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,<br>
</div>
<div>Emily<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="display:none;border:0px none;width:0px;height:0px;overflow:hidden"><img src="https://r.superhuman.com/U7KH74R7u-V9iyQnGsldIpSxcbRAMT2Jo_DcUpzixrkPj5PwLKOkDXILUETmGzIi8rjC_ejMHs7kzXTAum8_7pq2tJWtULkJLs2q5QcZdYr9HlorvLsgEa6B3IETytSDpo6YZt0_MrVTWDWIB6LM0v8Ig4cWQf9jkOQY9u8z58_l1jMTpfXCpAw.gif" alt="" style="display: none; border: 0px none; width: 0px; height: 0px; overflow: hidden;" width="1" height="0"></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre style="font-family:monospace">_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
<a href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">Libraries@haskell.org</a>
<a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Libraries mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org" target="_blank">Libraries@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Libraries mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org" target="_blank">Libraries@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>