Proposal process status

[Iavor Diatchki]

Hello Ben,

I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it
got buried among the rest of the e-mails.

I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how
well it will work in practice until we try it, and we should be ready to
change it if needs be.

Some clarifying questions on the intended process:
   1.  After submitting the initial merge request, is the person making the
proposal to wait for any kind of acknowledgment, or just move on to step 2?
   2. Is the discussion going to happen on one of the mailing lists, if so
which?   Is it the job of the proposing person to involve/notify the
committee about the discussion?  If so, how are they to find out who is on
the committee?
   3. How does one actually perform step 3, another pull request or simply
an e-mail to someone?

Typo: two separate bullets in the proposal are labelled as 4.

Cheers,
-Iavor

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com> 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?
>
>   * 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?
>
> 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-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20160720/d63dab24/attachment.html>