From mail at joachim-breitner.de  Thu Jan 19 04:27:05 2017
From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:27:05 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
Message-ID: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>

Hi,

good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.

I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before
all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get
started on?

There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism
and OverloadedRecordFields
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/labels/Pending%20committee%20review
According to our process documents, this label setting should have
already triggered our part of the process!

We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while
(you can sort by that in the issue list) for example
* Optional tuple parenthesization <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/19>
* Stack pointer stuff <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/17>
and others.
I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move
forward (or abandon).

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170118/ad9b690a/attachment.sig>

From cma at bitemyapp.com  Thu Jan 19 17:53:10 2017
From: cma at bitemyapp.com (Christopher Allen)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:53:10 -0600
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
Message-ID: <CADnndOpXvv7=N+nCoCMyDZDdbTx_o1zY=s4AdQReYKED=LST1g@mail.gmail.com>

What's the most ready for discussion or implementation in your estimation?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Joachim Breitner
<mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
>
> I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before
> all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get
> started on?
>
> There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism
> and OverloadedRecordFields
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/labels/Pending%20committee%20review
> According to our process documents, this label setting should have
> already triggered our part of the process!
>
> We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while
> (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example
> * Optional tuple parenthesization <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/19>
> * Stack pointer stuff <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/17>
> and others.
> I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move
> forward (or abandon).
>
> Greetings,
> Joachim
>
> --
> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
>   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>



-- 
Chris Allen
Currently working on http://haskellbook.com

From iavor.diatchki at gmail.com  Thu Jan 19 19:15:45 2017
From: iavor.diatchki at gmail.com (Iavor Diatchki)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:15:45 -0800
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <CADnndOpXvv7=N+nCoCMyDZDdbTx_o1zY=s4AdQReYKED=LST1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <CADnndOpXvv7=N+nCoCMyDZDdbTx_o1zY=s4AdQReYKED=LST1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK9nupjLDWq2NUwusYrkfBDMhMmmEjUXhC2yruwTN4A7hMk5w@mail.gmail.com>

I thought the Levity Polymorphism one (i.e, make the representation of
unboxed tuples more fine grained) is a fairly straight one, so perhaps we
should start with it?

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Christopher Allen <cma at bitemyapp.com>
wrote:

> What's the most ready for discussion or implementation in your estimation?
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Joachim Breitner
> <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
> >
> > I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before
> > all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get
> > started on?
> >
> > There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism
> > and OverloadedRecordFields
> > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/
> labels/Pending%20committee%20review
> > According to our process documents, this label setting should have
> > already triggered our part of the process!
> >
> > We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while
> > (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example
> > * Optional tuple parenthesization <https://github.com/ghc-
> proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/19>
> > * Stack pointer stuff <https://github.com/ghc-
> proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/17>
> > and others.
> > I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move
> > forward (or abandon).
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Joachim
> >
> > --
> > Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
> >   mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> >   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
> >   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Allen
> Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170119/e53d94c0/attachment.html>

From ben at well-typed.com  Thu Jan 19 23:07:59 2017
From: ben at well-typed.com (Ben Gamari)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:07:59 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
Message-ID: <87d1fir6ls.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>

Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
>
> I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before
> all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get
> started on?
>
Hmm, I sent a message to the list on this matter earlier this week; did
it get lost along the way?

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170119/cfc04d97/attachment.sig>

From simonpj at microsoft.com  Thu Jan 19 23:08:31 2017
From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:08:31 +0000
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
Message-ID: <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>

I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT

- Update levity polymorphism
- Constraint vs type

for 8.2.  They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where we are today.

Simon

| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-
| bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
| Sent: 19 January 2017 04:27
| To: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
| Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
| 
| Hi,
| 
| good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
| 
| I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all
| of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started
| on?
| 
| There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism
| and OverloadedRecordFields
| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
| om%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
| proposals%2Flabels%2FPending%2520committee%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Csimo
| npj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af
| 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474183335&sdata=0c0zB1j4wztdCRzYUwbKR
| HjygAkZ4kZD2Xx1q9Hz5vQ%3D&reserved=0
| According to our process documents, this label setting should have
| already triggered our part of the process!
| 
| We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while
| (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example
| * Optional tuple parenthesization
| <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
| com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
| proposals%2Fpull%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538
| 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620
| 3968474183335&sdata=LKvWS5wWZirzoT4WrR1M8KR0WyXUSTlIhBAkm5eb2h4%3D&reserv
| ed=0>
| * Stack pointer stuff
| <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
| com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
| proposals%2Fpull%2F17&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538
| 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620
| 3968474183335&sdata=y897Px1tIgvuypmksVz%2FmSjHS3JEmfWFMQut1I%2BZ6mM%3D&re
| served=0>
| and others.
| I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward
| (or abandon).
| 
| Greetings,
| Joachim
| 
| --
| Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
|   mail at joachim-breitner.de •
| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joac
| him-
| breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb85381547413
| 91708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474
| 183335&sdata=4fjS%2FYqv7JpLQYafkod66veFw5nKDw8kG%2BRNK09NIB0%3D&reserved=
| 0
|   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
|   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org

From simonpj at microsoft.com  Thu Jan 19 23:21:26 2017
From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:21:26 +0000
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
Message-ID: <DM2PR21MB0028413C83065B109632708CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>

I propose that we adopt the overloaded record field proposal too.  I've just re-read it -- it's nice.

Simon

| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-
| bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
| Sent: 19 January 2017 04:27
| To: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
| Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
| 
| Hi,
| 
| good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
| 
| I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all
| of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started
| on?
| 
| There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism
| and OverloadedRecordFields
| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
| om%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
| proposals%2Flabels%2FPending%2520committee%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Csimo
| npj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af
| 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474183335&sdata=0c0zB1j4wztdCRzYUwbKR
| HjygAkZ4kZD2Xx1q9Hz5vQ%3D&reserved=0
| According to our process documents, this label setting should have
| already triggered our part of the process!
| 
| We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while
| (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example
| * Optional tuple parenthesization
| <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
| com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
| proposals%2Fpull%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538
| 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620
| 3968474183335&sdata=LKvWS5wWZirzoT4WrR1M8KR0WyXUSTlIhBAkm5eb2h4%3D&reserv
| ed=0>
| * Stack pointer stuff
| <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
| com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
| proposals%2Fpull%2F17&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538
| 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620
| 3968474183335&sdata=y897Px1tIgvuypmksVz%2FmSjHS3JEmfWFMQut1I%2BZ6mM%3D&re
| served=0>
| and others.
| I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward
| (or abandon).
| 
| Greetings,
| Joachim
| 
| --
| Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
|   mail at joachim-breitner.de •
| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joac
| him-
| breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb85381547413
| 91708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474
| 183335&sdata=4fjS%2FYqv7JpLQYafkod66veFw5nKDw8kG%2BRNK09NIB0%3D&reserved=
| 0
|   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
|   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org

From cma at bitemyapp.com  Thu Jan 19 23:42:16 2017
From: cma at bitemyapp.com (Christopher Allen)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:42:16 -0600
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <87d1fir6ls.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <87d1fir6ls.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
Message-ID: <CADnndOoj6hj_N0tso82-UmS29yv96ziE=YVoyz2T2T=rPNL2Tg@mail.gmail.com>

I wasn't signed up and didn't know its existence until 2 days ago. (Attached)

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com> wrote:
> Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
>>
>> I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before
>> all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get
>> started on?
>>
> Hmm, I sent a message to the list on this matter earlier this week; did
> it get lost along the way?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>



-- 
Chris Allen
Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot from 2017-01-19 17-42-00.png
Type: image/png
Size: 51802 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170119/bf4b3340/attachment-0001.png>

From ben at well-typed.com  Fri Jan 20 02:01:25 2017
From: ben at well-typed.com (Ben Gamari)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 21:01:25 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <CADnndOoj6hj_N0tso82-UmS29yv96ziE=YVoyz2T2T=rPNL2Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <87d1fir6ls.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
 <CADnndOoj6hj_N0tso82-UmS29yv96ziE=YVoyz2T2T=rPNL2Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8760laqykq.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>

Christopher Allen <cma at bitemyapp.com> writes:

> I wasn't signed up and didn't know its existence until 2 days ago. (Attached)
>
Sorry for the oversight, Chris.

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170119/c6e6b9e5/attachment.sig>

From rae at cs.brynmawr.edu  Fri Jan 20 04:02:50 2017
From: rae at cs.brynmawr.edu (Richard Eisenberg)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:02:50 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C4426320-84F5-4727-9C6C-4F61DF24362A@cs.brynmawr.edu>


> On Jan 19, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
> 
> - Update levity polymorphism
> - Constraint vs type
> 

I second this, if I'm allowed to vote...

Note that the alternate ideas in Constraint vs type are worthwhile discussion and may still happen in the future. Implementing as proposed does not bar the way to future improvements.

Richard

From simonpj at microsoft.com  Wed Jan 25 10:00:40 2017
From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:00:40 +0000
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy
 unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)
In-Reply-To: <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35/c274707495@github.com>
References: <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35@github.com>
 <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35/c274707495@github.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR21MB00280D3CCF44C3FAD0325CB5AD740@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>

Colleagues

I didn’t think we had any 4-week discussion period.  I thought that it was up to the author to press the button, saying “I think the proposal is in its final form, and the community has had enough time to respond”.  At that point it moves from “Discussion” to “Committee decision” phase.


I guess there could be a minimum period: the author can’t press the button until the community really has had time.  But if they don’t want to push the button, fine.

I’m trying put the author in control as much as possible.

In decision mode we need a shepherd from the committee to push the discussion forward.  Ben, as our current secretary, should suggest who.

Incidentally the “proposals process” link in the opening sentence https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals leads back to the same page, which is unhelpful. It should lead to https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposal-submission.rst  (which is about the whole process, not just about submission despite the URL).

Simon

From: Ben Gamari [mailto:notifications at github.com]
Sent: 24 January 2017 04:35
To: ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals <ghc-proposals at noreply.github.com>
Cc: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>; Comment <comment at noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)


Note that this proposal is now half-way through its four week discussion period. At the end of this period we ask @goldfirere<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fgoldfirere&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C2c56dc62d8de4944dc2408d444124e75%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636208292805590167&sdata=JcitilvBwPvMmYiIpVVBRmjoXGO2ItnCv%2BrPy%2FsLitw%3D&reserved=0> to summarize the discussion and bring the proposal to the GHC committee for consideration. Thanks!

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F35%23issuecomment-274707495&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C2c56dc62d8de4944dc2408d444124e75%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636208292805590167&sdata=Hg03Oek7o%2Bzl4j3S3koLw3CI7fI%2FjYpUUpn4ZWc2p0w%3D&reserved=0>, or mute the thread<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAAjsezzb1mOJxpcJRg8-90Aq3yyybLq_ks5rVX9cgaJpZM4Lfnkq&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C2c56dc62d8de4944dc2408d444124e75%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636208292805590167&sdata=eHP3GYRrs5%2F8qfM8z%2BjEYU2JjaxPRDDJQCbMSTxRssU%3D&reserved=0>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170125/3ab6fb6a/attachment.html>

From ben at well-typed.com  Thu Jan 26 16:16:01 2017
From: ben at well-typed.com (Ben Gamari)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:16:01 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <87lgtxokzi.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>

Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:

> I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
>
> - Update levity polymorphism
> - Constraint vs type
>
> for 8.2. They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they
> tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where
> we are today.
>
For the record I agree here; both proposals are well-considered and
patch up issues which actively impede some legitimate uses of
TypeInType.

Do we have objections to adoption?

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170126/09f5d7f2/attachment.sig>

From cma at bitemyapp.com  Thu Jan 26 17:02:01 2017
From: cma at bitemyapp.com (Christopher Allen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:02:01 -0600
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <87lgtxokzi.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <87lgtxokzi.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
Message-ID: <CADnndOqb0VqExV15ySSC=RGW0Nr1RdCxhgtMxmqfbVA2qW6c0g@mail.gmail.com>

No objections with the understanding that I'll still file a bug if
something like the 8.0 RC comes up again.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com> wrote:
> Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:
>
>> I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
>>
>> - Update levity polymorphism
>> - Constraint vs type
>>
>> for 8.2. They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they
>> tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where
>> we are today.
>>
> For the record I agree here; both proposals are well-considered and
> patch up issues which actively impede some legitimate uses of
> TypeInType.
>
> Do we have objections to adoption?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>



-- 
Chris Allen
Currently working on http://haskellbook.com

From ben at well-typed.com  Thu Jan 26 18:09:37 2017
From: ben at well-typed.com (Ben Gamari)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:09:37 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0028413C83065B109632708CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <DM2PR21MB0028413C83065B109632708CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <87efzpofq6.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>

Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:

> I propose that we adopt the overloaded record field proposal too. I've
> just re-read it -- it's nice.
>
My only question with the ORF proposal is how it interacts with record
pattern synonyms, as I pointed out on the pull request. I do wish that
there was a clearer story for practical polymorphic update, but if Adam
says that this should be compatible with the current proposal then so be
it.

I also vote to adopt.

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170126/37ca9270/attachment.sig>

From ben at well-typed.com  Thu Jan 26 18:26:36 2017
From: ben at well-typed.com (Ben Gamari)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:26:36 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <CADnndOqb0VqExV15ySSC=RGW0Nr1RdCxhgtMxmqfbVA2qW6c0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <87lgtxokzi.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
 <CADnndOqb0VqExV15ySSC=RGW0Nr1RdCxhgtMxmqfbVA2qW6c0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87bmutoexv.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>

Christopher Allen <cma at bitemyapp.com> writes:

> No objections with the understanding that I'll still file a bug if
> something like the 8.0 RC comes up again.
>
Of course, I would hope you would! We don't want to sacrifice
ease-of-use in the common cases in the name of these cleanups.

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170126/e11c9f81/attachment.sig>

From chak at justtesting.org  Fri Jan 27 03:30:13 2017
From: chak at justtesting.org (Manuel M T Chakravarty)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:30:13 +1100
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1484800025.19195.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de>
 <DM2PR21MB0028A1D42C4C9C507577BC7CAD7E0@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <628B471F-D6DD-4F4E-9C0C-61AB428FBAFE@justtesting.org>

+1 

> Am 20.01.2017 um 10:08 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>:
> 
> I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
> 
> - Update levity polymorphism
> - Constraint vs type
> 
> for 8.2.  They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where we are today.
> 
> Simon
> 
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-
> | bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
> | Sent: 19 January 2017 04:27
> | To: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with?
> | 
> | Hi,
> | 
> | good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
> | 
> | I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all
> | of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started
> | on?
> | 
> | There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism
> | and OverloadedRecordFields
> | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> | om%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
> | proposals%2Flabels%2FPending%2520committee%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Csimo
> | npj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af
> | 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474183335&sdata=0c0zB1j4wztdCRzYUwbKR
> | HjygAkZ4kZD2Xx1q9Hz5vQ%3D&reserved=0
> | According to our process documents, this label setting should have
> | already triggered our part of the process!
> | 
> | We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while
> | (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example
> | * Optional tuple parenthesization
> | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
> | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
> | proposals%2Fpull%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538
> | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620
> | 3968474183335&sdata=LKvWS5wWZirzoT4WrR1M8KR0WyXUSTlIhBAkm5eb2h4%3D&reserv
> | ed=0>
> | * Stack pointer stuff
> | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.
> | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-
> | proposals%2Fpull%2F17&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538
> | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620
> | 3968474183335&sdata=y897Px1tIgvuypmksVz%2FmSjHS3JEmfWFMQut1I%2BZ6mM%3D&re
> | served=0>
> | and others.
> | I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward
> | (or abandon).
> | 
> | Greetings,
> | Joachim
> | 
> | --
> | Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
> |   mail at joachim-breitner.de •
> | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joac
> | him-
> | breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb85381547413
> | 91708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474
> | 183335&sdata=4fjS%2FYqv7JpLQYafkod66veFw5nKDw8kG%2BRNK09NIB0%3D&reserved=
> | 0
> |   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
> |   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee


From simonpj at microsoft.com  Fri Jan 27 13:02:09 2017
From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:02:09 +0000
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy
 unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)
In-Reply-To: <87h94lokkp.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
References: <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35@github.com>
 <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35/c274707495@github.com>
 <DM2PR21MB00280D3CCF44C3FAD0325CB5AD740@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <87h94lokkp.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR21MB0028887C870329C8B7E3DB5EAD760@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>

| The limited discussion period was a suggestion that entered the process
| only rather late as a suggestion from Richard (or least my interpretation
| thereof). The hope is that it makes things a bit more manageable by
| keeping the number of proposals at the focus of the communities attention
| small. Authors are of course able to continue working with collaborators
| to hone their proposals outside of the discussion phase, but we want to
| avoid having idle proposals accumulate over time.

OK.  I propose that we change this.  Remove the four-week language.  Instead:

* At any time the author of a proposal can transition from "Discussion" to
  "Decision", by changing the status of the proposal [link to explain how],
  and by sending email to the committee to signal the change.

  The author should do this only when there has been adequate opportunity
  for the community to respond to the proposal.  It would be unusual
  to consider adequate any period less than four weeks from the last
  substantial change to the proposal.  But this is not a hard and fast
  rule.  It's the intent that matters.

* Any proposal in "Discussion" that has had no input for more than four weeks
  may be moved "Dormant" status (by anyone).  The goal here is simply to keep manageable
  the list of proposals that are being actively worked on.  The author
  is free to resurrect it to "Discussion" status.

Simon

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Ben Gamari [mailto:ben at well-typed.com]
| Sent: 26 January 2017 16:25
| To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
| Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy
| unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)
| 
| Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:
| 
| > Colleagues
| >
| > I didn’t think we had any 4-week discussion period. I thought that it
| > was up to the author to press the button, saying “I think the proposal
| > is in its final form, and the community has had enough time to
| > respond”. At that point it moves from “Discussion” to “Committee
| > decision” phase.
| >
| The limited discussion period was a suggestion that entered the process
| only rather late as a suggestion from Richard (or least my interpretation
| thereof). The hope is that it makes things a bit more manageable by
| keeping the number of proposals at the focus of the communities attention
| small. Authors are of course able to continue working with collaborators
| to hone their proposals outside of the discussion phase, but we want to
| avoid having idle proposals accumulate over time.
| >
| > I guess there could be a minimum period: the author can’t press the
| > button until the community really has had time. But if they don’t want
| > to push the button, fine.
| >
| > I’m trying put the author in control as much as possible.
| >
| > In decision mode we need a shepherd from the committee to push the
| > discussion forward. Ben, as our current secretary, should suggest who.
| >
| Sure.
| 
| 
| > Incidentally the “proposals process” link in the opening sentence
| > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals leads back to the same
| > page, which is unhelpful. It should lead to
| > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposal-su
| > bmission.rst (which is about the whole process, not just about
| > submission despite the URL).
| >
| I'll have a look at this.
| 
| Cheers,
| 
| - Ben

From rae at cs.brynmawr.edu  Fri Jan 27 14:16:57 2017
From: rae at cs.brynmawr.edu (Richard Eisenberg)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:16:57 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy
	unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0028887C870329C8B7E3DB5EAD760@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35@github.com>
 <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35/c274707495@github.com>
 <DM2PR21MB00280D3CCF44C3FAD0325CB5AD740@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <87h94lokkp.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
 <DM2PR21MB0028887C870329C8B7E3DB5EAD760@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C73C0C0B-C6A2-4122-B220-74F0A60BF27F@cs.brynmawr.edu>


> On Jan 27, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> OK.  I propose that we change this.  Remove the four-week language.  Instead:
> 
> * At any time the author of a proposal can transition from "Discussion" to
>  "Decision", by changing the status of the proposal [link to explain how],
>  and by sending email to the committee to signal the change.
> 
>  The author should do this only when there has been adequate opportunity
>  for the community to respond to the proposal.  It would be unusual
>  to consider adequate any period less than four weeks from the last
>  substantial change to the proposal.  But this is not a hard and fast
>  rule.  It's the intent that matters.
> 
> * Any proposal in "Discussion" that has had no input for more than four weeks
>  may be moved "Dormant" status (by anyone).  The goal here is simply to keep manageable
>  the list of proposals that are being actively worked on.  The author
>  is free to resurrect it to "Discussion" status.

+1

From mail at joachim-breitner.de  Fri Jan 27 15:35:21 2017
From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:35:21 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy
 unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)
In-Reply-To: <C73C0C0B-C6A2-4122-B220-74F0A60BF27F@cs.brynmawr.edu>
References: <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35@github.com>
 <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35/c274707495@github.com>
 <DM2PR21MB00280D3CCF44C3FAD0325CB5AD740@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <87h94lokkp.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
 <DM2PR21MB0028887C870329C8B7E3DB5EAD760@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <C73C0C0B-C6A2-4122-B220-74F0A60BF27F@cs.brynmawr.edu>
Message-ID: <1485531321.16090.2.camel@joachim-breitner.de>

Hi,

Am Freitag, den 27.01.2017, 09:16 -0500 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> > On Jan 27, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.
> > com> wrote:
> > 
> > OK.  I propose that we change this.  Remove the four-week
> > language.  Instead:
> > 
> > * At any time the author of a proposal can transition from
> > "Discussion" to
> >  "Decision", by changing the status of the proposal [link to
> > explain how],
> >  and by sending email to the committee to signal the change.
> > 
> >  The author should do this only when there has been adequate
> > opportunity
> >  for the community to respond to the proposal.  It would be unusual
> >  to consider adequate any period less than four weeks from the last
> >  substantial change to the proposal.  But this is not a hard and
> > fast
> >  rule.  It's the intent that matters.
> > 
> > * Any proposal in "Discussion" that has had no input for more than
> > four weeks
> >  may be moved "Dormant" status (by anyone).  The goal here is
> > simply to keep manageable
> >  the list of proposals that are being actively worked on.  The
> > author
> >  is free to resurrect it to "Discussion" status.
> 
> +1

+1
-- 
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170127/8e32a267/attachment.sig>

From ben at well-typed.com  Fri Jan 27 15:53:49 2017
From: ben at well-typed.com (Ben Gamari)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:53:49 -0500
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] Lazy
	unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35)
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR21MB0028887C870329C8B7E3DB5EAD760@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35@github.com>
 <ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35/c274707495@github.com>
 <DM2PR21MB00280D3CCF44C3FAD0325CB5AD740@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <87h94lokkp.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>
 <DM2PR21MB0028887C870329C8B7E3DB5EAD760@DM2PR21MB0028.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <87sho4mrci.fsf@ben-laptop.smart-cactus.org>

Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:

> | The limited discussion period was a suggestion that entered the process
> | only rather late as a suggestion from Richard (or least my interpretation
> | thereof). The hope is that it makes things a bit more manageable by
> | keeping the number of proposals at the focus of the communities attention
> | small. Authors are of course able to continue working with collaborators
> | to hone their proposals outside of the discussion phase, but we want to
> | avoid having idle proposals accumulate over time.
>
> OK.  I propose that we change this.  Remove the four-week language.  Instead:
>
> * At any time the author of a proposal can transition from "Discussion" to
>   "Decision", by changing the status of the proposal [link to explain how],
>   and by sending email to the committee to signal the change.
>
>   The author should do this only when there has been adequate opportunity
>   for the community to respond to the proposal.  It would be unusual
>   to consider adequate any period less than four weeks from the last
>   substantial change to the proposal.  But this is not a hard and fast
>   rule.  It's the intent that matters.
>
> * Any proposal in "Discussion" that has had no input for more than four weeks
>   may be moved "Dormant" status (by anyone).  The goal here is simply to keep manageable
>   the list of proposals that are being actively worked on.  The author
>   is free to resurrect it to "Discussion" status.
>
Yes, this sounds reasonable. I can rework the language in the
documentation and send an announcement if there are no objections.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170127/0b3d0bba/attachment.sig>