[ghc-steering-committee] Steering committee discussions

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 20.02.2018, 11:19 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
> The thread below is a case in point.  Good stuff from Joachim, but
> not visible to the author or the world; result, lost insights.

actually, in this case, I did bring this up in the discussion on
GitHub; the author was not convinced and brought the proposal forward
anyways, so now I am trying to sway the committee instead :-)


> Suggestion: could we hold all the committee debase on the proposal
> thread, thereby allowing the author to chime in if need be?   There
> might be some messages we want to be private -- very well, use the
> email list for those, but my sense is that 95% are absolutely
> publishable.

This list is public, do not post private stuff here! It is just a bit
“less visible” and less noisy.

Having technical discussions on GitHub is a reasonable thing to do. It
will be more noisy, i.e. many people chiming in, but that can of course
also be a good thing.

> What changes when the shepherd kicks in?  Answer: the committee
> switches from observer (and contribute if you like) mode, to
> obligation-to-consider mode.

Correct.

Shall we still require mails to the list when

 * A proposal was put forward
 * A shepherd makes a suggestions, and invites the committee to 
   comment (now on GitHub)
 * The shepherd or the secretary observes consensus, and declares
   a decision?


(This will actually make my life of assembling the “Status” mails
easier, but it will make it harder to determine consensus.)

All in all, I’m up for trying it out!

Cheers,
Joachim
-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
-------------- 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/20180220/dd3b61ba/attachment.sig>