Proposal process status

[Alan & Kim Zimmerman]

I think the most important thing is to be able to point to a designated
point where discussions must take place. This means if anything comes up
elsewhere it can be routed there to be "official".

Alan

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Yuras Shumovich <shumovichy at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here:
>
> On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 11:36 +0200, Ben Gamari wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > As you hopefully know, a few weeks ago we proposed a new process [1]
> > for
> > collecting, discussing, and deciding upon changes to GHC and its
> > Haskell
> > superset. While we have been happy to see a small contingent of
> > contributors join the discussion, the number is significantly smaller
> > than the set who took part in the earlier Reddit discussions.
> >
> > In light of this, we are left a bit uncertain of how to proceed. So,
> > we would like to ask you to let us know your feelings regarding the
> > proposed process:
> >
> >   * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the
> > status
> >     quo?
>
> Yes, definitely. The existing process is too vague, so formalizing it
> is a win in any case.
>
>
> >
> >   * Why? (this needn't be long, just a sentence hitting the major
> > points)
> >
> >   * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if
> >     anything?
>
>
> The proposed process overlaps with the Language Committee powers. In
> theory the Committee works on language standard, but de facto Haskell
> is GHC/Haskell and GHC/Haskell is Haskell. Adding new extension to GHC
> adds new extension to Haskell. So I'd like the process to enforce
> separation between experimental extensions (not recommended in
> production code) and language improvements. I'd like the process to
> specify how the GHC Committee is going to communicate and share powers
> with the Language Committee.
>
> Thanks,
> Yuras.
>
> >
> > That's all. Again, feel free to reply either on the GitHub pull
> > request
> > [1] or this thread if you would prefer. Your response needn't be
> > long;
> > we just want to get a sense of how much of the community feels that
> > 1)
> > this effort is worth undertaking, and 2) that the proposal before us
> > is
> > in fact an improvement over the current state of affairs.
> >
> > Thanks for your help!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - Ben
> >
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> > Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-user
> > s
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20160720/4b386028/attachment.html>