From sandy at sandymaguire.me Thu Aug 1 12:55:59 2019 From: sandy at sandymaguire.me (Sandy Maguire) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 08:55:59 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Type annotated quoters (#125) --- recommendation: accept In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It appears that we've reached consensus here. I've announced the proposal as accepted. Thanks all! Sandy On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:28 PM Iavor Diatchki wrote: > It is a rather small change, but I think it could be handy. I just > posted an example on GitHub, along the lines of what you were asking > for, have a look and see what you think. > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:34 AM Simon Peyton Jones via > ghc-steering-committee wrote: > > > > My current POV is that I think this feature is far far more limited than > I originally thought -- and hence unattractive. (I’ve posted on the > discussion thread to that effect.) > > > > > > > > I’m willing to be educated! > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > From: ghc-steering-committee > On Behalf Of Sandy Maguire > > Sent: 11 July 2019 20:10 > > To: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > > Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Type annotated quoters (#125) --- > recommendation: accept > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Proposal 125 is on the topic of making quasiquoters which annotate the > type of expression they produce. For example: > > > > > > > > qq :: TQuasiQuoter Int > > > > > > > > which would work when used via > > > > > > > > foo :: Int > > > > foo = [qq|| blah ||] > > > > > > > > but would be a type error (even before expanding the splice) in the > context of > > > > > > > > bar :: String > > > > bar = [qq|| blah ||] > > > > > > > > I'm in favor of this proposal. It's small, a natural extension to typed > expressions+quasiquoters, and solves the very real problem of statically > verifying literals at compile time. > > > > > > > > The proposal is here: > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 > > > > and my recommendation is: > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125#issuecomment-510612026 > > > > > > > > I have recommend a syntactic change that is *not* present in the > original proposal text. It seems unfair to make the proposer jump through > more hoops after a year of inactivity on this proposal. > > > > > > > > As usual, silence will be considered assent! > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Sandy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Mon Aug 5 15:21:18 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 17:21:18 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Haskell Implementors Working: Looking for Panelists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Odd, this mail just came through now. I see that sometimes that mails to the list are very late, and the problem seems to be haskell.org- specific: Received: from haskell.org (ip6-localhost [127.0.0.1]) by haskell.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD52BBC8EE; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by haskell.org (Postfix, from userid 110) id AB575BC8E6; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:14:49 +0000 (UTC) Anyways, do we have any takers? Cheers, Joachim Am Freitag, den 26.07.2019, 14:09 +0200 schrieb Niki Vazou: > Haskell Implementors Workshop 2019 will be having a 45 min panel discussion (17.15-18.00 on Fri 23th August). > > The goal is to have panelists that represent the following committees: > - ghc steering committee > - Devops committee > - core libraries committee > - Haskell' committee > - Haskell.org committee > - Haskell Symposium & HiW steering committee > > Let me know if you > - want like to be in the panel > - if there are issues you want to raise in the panel discussion. > > Best, > Niki > Chair of HiW'19 > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From sandy at sandymaguire.me Mon Aug 5 15:42:14 2019 From: sandy at sandymaguire.me (Sandy Maguire) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:42:14 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Haskell Implementors Working: Looking for Panelists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I assume this is an ICFP thing? On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:21 AM Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Odd, this mail just came through now. I see that sometimes that mails > to the list are very late, and the problem seems to be haskell.org- > specific: > > Received: from haskell.org (ip6-localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by haskell.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD52BBC8EE; > Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:24:39 +0000 (UTC) > Received: by haskell.org (Postfix, from userid 110) > id AB575BC8E6; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:14:49 +0000 (UTC) > > Anyways, do we have any takers? > > Cheers, > Joachim > > Am Freitag, den 26.07.2019, 14:09 +0200 schrieb Niki Vazou: > > Haskell Implementors Workshop 2019 will be having a 45 min panel > discussion (17.15-18.00 on Fri 23th August). > > > > The goal is to have panelists that represent the following committees: > > - ghc steering committee > > - Devops committee > > - core libraries committee > > - Haskell' committee > > - Haskell.org committee > > - Haskell Symposium & HiW steering committee > > > > Let me know if you > > - want like to be in the panel > > - if there are issues you want to raise in the panel discussion. > > > > Best, > > Niki > > Chair of HiW'19 > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > -- > Joachim Breitner > mail at joachim-breitner.de > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Mon Aug 5 16:05:36 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:05:36 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Haskell Implementors Working: Looking for Panelists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13234c5ae3782458ca9cf1becc18a741d917d25c.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, yes, Haskell Implementors Workshop is a workshop colocated with ICFP, Niki runs it this year, and she would like to host a general Haskell- themed panel filled with people from the various committees. Cheers, Joachim Am Montag, den 05.08.2019, 11:42 -0400 schrieb Sandy Maguire: > I assume this is an ICFP thing? > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:21 AM Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Odd, this mail just came through now. I see that sometimes that mails > > to the list are very late, and the problem seems to be haskell.org- > > specific: > > > > Received: from haskell.org (ip6-localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > by haskell.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD52BBC8EE; > > Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:24:39 +0000 (UTC) > > Received: by haskell.org (Postfix, from userid 110) > > id AB575BC8E6; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:14:49 +0000 (UTC) > > > > Anyways, do we have any takers? > > > > Cheers, > > Joachim > > > > Am Freitag, den 26.07.2019, 14:09 +0200 schrieb Niki Vazou: > > > Haskell Implementors Workshop 2019 will be having a 45 min panel discussion (17.15-18.00 on Fri 23th August). > > > > > > The goal is to have panelists that represent the following committees: > > > - ghc steering committee > > > - Devops committee > > > - core libraries committee > > > - Haskell' committee > > > - Haskell.org committee > > > - Haskell Symposium & HiW steering committee > > > > > > Let me know if you > > > - want like to be in the panel > > > - if there are issues you want to raise in the panel discussion. > > > > > > Best, > > > Niki > > > Chair of HiW'19 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From rae at richarde.dev Mon Aug 5 17:45:10 2019 From: rae at richarde.dev (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:45:10 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Haskell Implementors Working: Looking for Panelists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59BBECD0-182D-4840-83C0-B576EE49889D@richarde.dev> > On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Odd, this mail just came through now. That's my doing. Niki is not a subscriber to this list, and when she posted, the post got moderated. I also wanted make sure NIki knew that the list is public and includes non-committee-members before allowing the post through (it would be easy to assume otherwise). Do please participate! :) Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rae at richarde.dev Mon Aug 5 18:01:44 2019 From: rae at richarde.dev (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:01:44 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Set reminders on Github In-Reply-To: <6A0DB886-B931-4429-B85A-8B481346C580@joachim-breitner.de> References: <47e8a5fd48b0c46539074a4927480f282ab3a95f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <6A0DB886-B931-4429-B85A-8B481346C580@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Is there a place where the reminder bot's syntax is described? I went to set a reminder and got nervous of saying something it didn't understand and then consequently producing a lot of noise while I tried to get it right. If you wrote this yourself and there is no documentation, a link to the source code is enough. :) Thanks, Richard > On Jul 29, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hi, > > no, in don't think so, the bot really just posts a message. Maybe it's good to set a public timer? Of course you can just put a reminder in your personal calendar if you worry about the noise. > > Cheers, > Joachim > > > > Am 29. Juli 2019 19:55:25 MESZ schrieb Iavor Diatchki : >> Is there a way to set it up so that when people add "remind-me" fake >> messages no e-mail is sent to people subscribed to the thread? > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Aug 6 08:41:34 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 10:41:34 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Set reminders on Github In-Reply-To: References: <47e8a5fd48b0c46539074a4927480f282ab3a95f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <6A0DB886-B931-4429-B85A-8B481346C580@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <74dfdf96c07e21b00a1b7006eb9f8453478dc500.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, this is a bot, and I think bot is a euphemism for “Software without documented interface”… It has a homepage with three examples: https://probot.github.io/apps/reminders/ and source at https://github.com/probot/reminders It seems to use this node module: https://www.npmjs.com/package/parse-reminder and, and it says “It aims to support all common forms of natural language for reminders”. Great! So just use common forms :-) How about we simply make GHC use all common forms of syntax? Then we can disband this committee :-) Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From rae at richarde.dev Tue Aug 6 12:19:49 2019 From: rae at richarde.dev (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:19:49 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Set reminders on Github In-Reply-To: <74dfdf96c07e21b00a1b7006eb9f8453478dc500.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <47e8a5fd48b0c46539074a4927480f282ab3a95f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <6A0DB886-B931-4429-B85A-8B481346C580@joachim-breitner.de> <74dfdf96c07e21b00a1b7006eb9f8453478dc500.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <6BB72A18-58E2-4BC2-8AE9-E0E1E9598182@richarde.dev> This is very helpful, thanks. The key bit of help is that it absolves me from feely guilty when I get it wrong. It's not an example of "garbage in, garbage out", but more of "garbage spec, garbage in". :) In any case, I do think this is very useful! Richard > On Aug 6, 2019, at 4:41 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hi, > > this is a bot, and I think bot is a euphemism for “Software without > documented interface”… > > It has a homepage with three examples: > https://probot.github.io/apps/reminders/ > and source at > https://github.com/probot/reminders > > It seems to use this node module: > https://www.npmjs.com/package/parse-reminder > and, and it says “It aims to support all common forms of natural > language for reminders”. Great! So just use common forms :-) > > How about we simply make GHC use all common forms of syntax? Then we > can disband this committee :-) > > Cheers, > Joachim > -- > Joachim Breitner > mail at joachim-breitner.de > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee From mail at joachim-breitner.de Wed Aug 7 21:03:17 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:03:17 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #233: Higher-order roles, Shepherd: Simon PJ Message-ID: Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Higher-order Roles has been proposed by Richard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/233 https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/higher-roles/proposals/0000-higher-roles.rst I propose Simon PJ as the shepherd, as he already has had a discussion with Richard on this. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, 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: From eric at seidel.io Tue Aug 13 00:14:33 2019 From: eric at seidel.io (Eric Seidel) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:14:33 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? Message-ID: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> Hi Committee! How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at some point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for us to reflect on and discuss: 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed with him but the discussion didn't go any further. 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the vote). I'll be around all week. Eric From iavor.diatchki at gmail.com Tue Aug 13 04:47:48 2019 From: iavor.diatchki at gmail.com (Iavor Diatchki) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:47:48 -0700 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: Hello, I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together one day? Iavor On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: > Hi Committee! > > How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at some > point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for us to > reflect on and discuss: > > 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that the > pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed with > him but the discussion didn't go any further. > > 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the > community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. > the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the vote). > > I'll be around all week. > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > 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: From arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io Tue Aug 13 06:22:57 2019 From: arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io (Spiwack, Arnaud) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 08:22:57 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: I won't be at ICFP, unfortunately. Do have fun withouth me ;-) . On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:48 AM Iavor Diatchki wrote: > Hello, > > I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together one > day? > > Iavor > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: > >> Hi Committee! >> >> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at some >> point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for us to >> reflect on and discuss: >> >> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that the >> pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed with >> him but the discussion didn't go any further. >> >> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the >> community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. >> the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the vote). >> >> I'll be around all week. >> >> Eric >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >> > _______________________________________________ > 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: From eric at seidel.io Tue Aug 13 11:06:13 2019 From: eric at seidel.io (Eric Seidel) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 07:06:13 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very early for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense of who will be on-site first. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki wrote: > > Hello, > > I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together one day? > > Iavor > >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: >> Hi Committee! >> >> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at some point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for us to reflect on and discuss: >> >> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed with him but the discussion didn't go any further. >> >> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the vote). >> >> I'll be around all week. >> >> Eric >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Aug 13 21:02:11 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 23:02:11 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> Message-ID: <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, will be there, happy to meet, lunch would be nice. Better avoid Thursday with the Haskell / HIW / FARM overlap :-( Cheers, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 13.08.2019, 07:06 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: > Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very early for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense of who will be on-site first. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together one day? > > > > Iavor > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: > > > Hi Committee! > > > > > > How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at some point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for us to reflect on and discuss: > > > > > > 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed with him but the discussion didn't go any further. > > > > > > 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the vote). > > > > > > I'll be around all week. > > > > > > Eric > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From rae at richarde.dev Wed Aug 14 19:28:07 2019 From: rae at richarde.dev (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:28:07 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <2B5B5CB8-7C8C-41D7-B63B-56EE7F570E84@richarde.dev> I'll be there, Mon-Fri and would be happy to meet. Yes, lunch might be poor for Americans, but there may not be a better option. Richard > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hi, > > will be there, happy to meet, lunch would be nice. > > Better avoid Thursday with the Haskell / HIW / FARM overlap :-( > > Cheers, > Joachim > > > Am Dienstag, den 13.08.2019, 07:06 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: >> Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very early for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense of who will be on-site first. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together one day? >>> >>> Iavor >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: >>>> Hi Committee! >>>> >>>> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at some point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for us to reflect on and discuss: >>>> >>>> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed with him but the discussion didn't go any further. >>>> >>>> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the vote). >>>> >>>> I'll be around all week. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > -- > Joachim Breitner > mail at joachim-breitner.de > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Aug 14 23:16:46 2019 From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:16:46 +0000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: <2B5B5CB8-7C8C-41D7-B63B-56EE7F570E84@richarde.dev> References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <2B5B5CB8-7C8C-41D7-B63B-56EE7F570E84@richarde.dev> Message-ID: I'll be there all week, and happy to meet if someone is willing to propose a time and place. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg | Sent: 14 August 2019 20:28 | To: Joachim Breitner | Cc: ghc-steering-committee | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? | | I'll be there, Mon-Fri and would be happy to meet. Yes, lunch might be | poor for Americans, but there may not be a better option. | | Richard | | > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Joachim Breitner | wrote: | > | > Hi, | > | > will be there, happy to meet, lunch would be nice. | > | > Better avoid Thursday with the Haskell / HIW / FARM overlap :-( | > | > Cheers, | > Joachim | > | > | > Am Dienstag, den 13.08.2019, 07:06 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: | >> Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very early | for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense of who | will be on-site first. | >> | >> Sent from my iPhone | >> | >> On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki | wrote: | >> | >>> Hello, | >>> | >>> I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together | one day? | >>> | >>> Iavor | >>> | >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: | >>>> Hi Committee! | >>>> | >>>> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at | some point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for | us to reflect on and discuss: | >>>> | >>>> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that | the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed | with him but the discussion didn't go any further. | >>>> | >>>> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the | community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. | the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the | vote). | >>>> | >>>> I'll be around all week. | >>>> | >>>> Eric | >>>> _______________________________________________ | >>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list | >>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | >>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-comm | >>>> ittee | >> | >> _______________________________________________ | >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list | >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | >> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-commit | >> tee | > -- | > Joachim Breitner | > mail at joachim-breitner.de | > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ | > | > _______________________________________________ | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list | > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ | > ee | | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee From rae at richarde.dev Sat Aug 17 14:41:59 2019 From: rae at richarde.dev (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 10:41:59 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Recommendation made for {-# AMBIGUOUS #-}, #232 In-Reply-To: <93E44369-2ADE-4CBB-95E7-09F92B6971DA@richarde.dev> References: <93E44369-2ADE-4CBB-95E7-09F92B6971DA@richarde.dev> Message-ID: > On Jul 5, 2019, at 12:04 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have made my recommendation for #232 here: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232#issuecomment-508803496 > > Thanks, > Richard This proposal has now been accepted. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Sun Aug 18 15:40:31 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 17:40:31 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Status Message-ID: Dear committee, since my career is no longer academic, I can use the PLMW panel discussion to do a new summary message. This has happened since the last status, we * were asked to review these proposals: #233 Higher-order roles (Shepherd: Simon PJ) * have a recommendation form the shepherd about: –none– * these proposals were withdrawn #115 Provenance-Qualified Package Imports * decided about the following proposals #240 Threaded RTS (accept) #228 Function result type signatures (accept) #125 Type-annotated quoters (accept) #232 Ambigious type annotation (accept) We currently have to act on the following 6 proposals, 4 down since last stats. Please check if any needs your action, especially as a shepherd (Simon Marlow, Vitaly)! Higher-order roles Shepherd: Simon PJ Status: Waiting for Simon to make a recommendation https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/233 Record with syntax Shepherd: Simon M. Status: Acceptance recommended, but no consensus https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 Simplified parsing of (~) and (!) Shepherd: Richard Status: Acceptance recommended, but no consensus https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/229 Qualified Imports Shepherd: Simon M. Status: Waiting for Simon to officially make a recommendation. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/220 Updated partial type signatures Shepherd: Vitaly Status: Waiting for Vitaly to make a recommendation. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/194 NoFieldSelectors Shepherd: Eric Status: Acceptance imminent, reminder set for Aug 23 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/160 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: From eric at seidel.io Sun Aug 18 16:25:01 2019 From: eric at seidel.io (Eric Seidel) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:25:01 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <2B5B5CB8-7C8C-41D7-B63B-56EE7F570E84@richarde.dev> Message-ID: Ok, let’s do Wednesday lunch then? For those who can’t attend in person, I’ll make sure my laptop has a good charge so we can pull you in via Skype. Send me your skype handle if you’d like to join remotely. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 15, 2019, at 01:16, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee wrote: > > I'll be there all week, and happy to meet if someone is willing to propose a time and place. > > Simon > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: ghc-steering-committee > | On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg > | Sent: 14 August 2019 20:28 > | To: Joachim Breitner > | Cc: ghc-steering-committee > | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? > | > | I'll be there, Mon-Fri and would be happy to meet. Yes, lunch might be > | poor for Americans, but there may not be a better option. > | > | Richard > | > | > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Joachim Breitner > | wrote: > | > > | > Hi, > | > > | > will be there, happy to meet, lunch would be nice. > | > > | > Better avoid Thursday with the Haskell / HIW / FARM overlap :-( > | > > | > Cheers, > | > Joachim > | > > | > > | > Am Dienstag, den 13.08.2019, 07:06 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: > | >> Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very early > | for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense of who > | will be on-site first. > | >> > | >> Sent from my iPhone > | >> > | >> On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki > | wrote: > | >> > | >>> Hello, > | >>> > | >>> I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch together > | one day? > | >>> > | >>> Iavor > | >>> > | >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: > | >>>> Hi Committee! > | >>>> > | >>>> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up again at > | some point? There are a couple things that I think might be worthwhile for > | us to reflect on and discuss: > | >>>> > | >>>> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back that > | the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us agreed > | with him but the discussion didn't go any further. > | >>>> > | >>>> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of the > | community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have prevented (e.g. > | the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around the > | vote). > | >>>> > | >>>> I'll be around all week. > | >>>> > | >>>> Eric > | >>>> _______________________________________________ > | >>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list > | >>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > | >>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-comm > | >>>> ittee > | >> > | >> _______________________________________________ > | >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list > | >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > | >> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-commit > | >> tee > | > -- > | > Joachim Breitner > | > mail at joachim-breitner.de > | > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > | > > | > _______________________________________________ > | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > | > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > | > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ > | > ee > | > | _______________________________________________ > | ghc-steering-committee mailing list > | ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > | https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee From mail at joachim-breitner.de Sun Aug 18 17:03:49 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 19:03:49 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <2B5B5CB8-7C8C-41D7-B63B-56EE7F570E84@richarde.dev> Message-ID: <15DCAF9A-3BFA-4713-9D30-7FBED7170659@joachim-breitner.de> Sounds good to me Am 18. August 2019 18:25:01 MESZ schrieb Eric Seidel : >Ok, let’s do Wednesday lunch then? > >For those who can’t attend in person, I’ll make sure my laptop has a >good charge so we can pull you in via Skype. Send me your skype handle >if you’d like to join remotely. > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 15, 2019, at 01:16, Simon Peyton Jones via >ghc-steering-committee wrote: >> >> I'll be there all week, and happy to meet if someone is willing to >propose a time and place. >> >> Simon >> >> | -----Original Message----- >> | From: ghc-steering-committee > >> | On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg >> | Sent: 14 August 2019 20:28 >> | To: Joachim Breitner >> | Cc: ghc-steering-committee >> | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? >> | >> | I'll be there, Mon-Fri and would be happy to meet. Yes, lunch might >be >> | poor for Americans, but there may not be a better option. >> | >> | Richard >> | >> | > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Joachim Breitner > >> | wrote: >> | > >> | > Hi, >> | > >> | > will be there, happy to meet, lunch would be nice. >> | > >> | > Better avoid Thursday with the Haskell / HIW / FARM overlap :-( >> | > >> | > Cheers, >> | > Joachim >> | > >> | > >> | > Am Dienstag, den 13.08.2019, 07:06 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: >> | >> Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very >early >> | for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense >of who >> | will be on-site first. >> | >> >> | >> Sent from my iPhone >> | >> >> | >> On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki > >> | wrote: >> | >> >> | >>> Hello, >> | >>> >> | >>> I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch >together >> | one day? >> | >>> >> | >>> Iavor >> | >>> >> | >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: >> | >>>> Hi Committee! >> | >>>> >> | >>>> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up >again at >> | some point? There are a couple things that I think might be >worthwhile for >> | us to reflect on and discuss: >> | >>>> >> | >>>> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back >that >> | the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us >agreed >> | with him but the discussion didn't go any further. >> | >>>> >> | >>>> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of >the >> | community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have >prevented (e.g. >> | the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around >the >> | vote). >> | >>>> >> | >>>> I'll be around all week. >> | >>>> >> | >>>> Eric >> | >>>> _______________________________________________ >> | >>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> | >>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> | >>>> >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-comm >> | >>>> ittee >> | >> >> | >> _______________________________________________ >> | >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> | >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> | >> >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-commit >> | >> tee >> | > -- >> | > Joachim Breitner >> | > mail at joachim-breitner.de >> | > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ >> | > >> | > _______________________________________________ >> | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> | > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> | > >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ >> | > ee >> | >> | _______________________________________________ >> | ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> | ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> | >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org >> >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee From marlowsd at gmail.com Sun Aug 18 19:08:41 2019 From: marlowsd at gmail.com (Simon Marlow) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 20:08:41 +0100 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? In-Reply-To: <15DCAF9A-3BFA-4713-9D30-7FBED7170659@joachim-breitner.de> References: <74cca599-2bab-48a6-981e-43003c544618@www.fastmail.com> <72FED5D2-0F1C-40D1-BD32-23BFDA45B19A@seidel.io> <1a331b1a37dab24ced0283b37ba8a585f5c06c75.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <2B5B5CB8-7C8C-41D7-B63B-56EE7F570E84@richarde.dev> <15DCAF9A-3BFA-4713-9D30-7FBED7170659@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Sounds good to me too Simon On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 18:04, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Sounds good to me > > Am 18. August 2019 18:25:01 MESZ schrieb Eric Seidel : > >Ok, let’s do Wednesday lunch then? > > > >For those who can’t attend in person, I’ll make sure my laptop has a > >good charge so we can pull you in via Skype. Send me your skype handle > >if you’d like to join remotely. > > > >Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Aug 15, 2019, at 01:16, Simon Peyton Jones via > >ghc-steering-committee wrote: > >> > >> I'll be there all week, and happy to meet if someone is willing to > >propose a time and place. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> | -----Original Message----- > >> | From: ghc-steering-committee > > > >> | On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg > >> | Sent: 14 August 2019 20:28 > >> | To: Joachim Breitner > >> | Cc: ghc-steering-committee > >> | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] ICFP Meetup? > >> | > >> | I'll be there, Mon-Fri and would be happy to meet. Yes, lunch might > >be > >> | poor for Americans, but there may not be a better option. > >> | > >> | Richard > >> | > >> | > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Joachim Breitner > > > >> | wrote: > >> | > > >> | > Hi, > >> | > > >> | > will be there, happy to meet, lunch would be nice. > >> | > > >> | > Better avoid Thursday with the Haskell / HIW / FARM overlap :-( > >> | > > >> | > Cheers, > >> | > Joachim > >> | > > >> | > > >> | > Am Dienstag, den 13.08.2019, 07:06 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: > >> | >> Lunch would be nice, but the time difference would make it very > >early > >> | for any US-based members who wanted to call in. Let’s get a sense > >of who > >> | will be on-site first. > >> | >> > >> | >> Sent from my iPhone > >> | >> > >> | >> On Aug 13, 2019, at 00:47, Iavor Diatchki > > > >> | wrote: > >> | >> > >> | >>> Hello, > >> | >>> > >> | >>> I'll be around, and happy to meet. Maybe we can have lunch > >together > >> | one day? > >> | >>> > >> | >>> Iavor > >> | >>> > >> | >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 17:15 Eric Seidel wrote: > >> | >>>> Hi Committee! > >> | >>>> > >> | >>>> How many of us will be at ICFP next week? Shall we meet up > >again at > >> | some point? There are a couple things that I think might be > >worthwhile for > >> | us to reflect on and discuss: > >> | >>>> > >> | >>>> 1. The GitHub vs ML question. Richard argued a few weeks back > >that > >> | the pure GitHub strategy wasn't working very well, and a few of us > >agreed > >> | with him but the discussion didn't go any further. > >> | >>>> > >> | >>>> 2. The ExtraCommas proposal left quite a few valued members of > >the > >> | community dissatisfied, in ways that I think we could have > >prevented (e.g. > >> | the excessively long deliberation period and the confusion around > >the > >> | vote). > >> | >>>> > >> | >>>> I'll be around all week. > >> | >>>> > >> | >>>> Eric > >> | >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> | >>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list > >> | >>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > >> | >>>> > >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-comm > >> | >>>> ittee > >> | >> > >> | >> _______________________________________________ > >> | >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list > >> | >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > >> | >> > >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-commit > >> | >> tee > >> | > -- > >> | > Joachim Breitner > >> | > mail at joachim-breitner.de > >> | > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > >> | > > >> | > _______________________________________________ > >> | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > >> | > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > >> | > > >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ > >> | > ee > >> | > >> | _______________________________________________ > >> | ghc-steering-committee mailing list > >> | ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > >> | > >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list > >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > >> > >https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Aug 20 14:43:07 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:43:07 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #258: TopLevelKindSignatures -> StandaloneKindSignatures , Shepherd: Chris Message-ID: Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: TopLevelKindSignatures -> StandaloneKindSignatures has been proposed by Krzysztof Gogolewski https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/258 I propose Chris as the shepherd. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From rae at richarde.dev Wed Aug 21 08:29:20 2019 From: rae at richarde.dev (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:29:20 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] lunch in "Wolverine" Message-ID: <3B4A16B7-AD4E-419C-B38D-E639C6929E30@richarde.dev> Hi all, The lunch today at ICFP will take place in the Wolverine room. Pass between the elevators and turn left to find the room. Please bring your lunch to the room. If you beat me there and the room is locked, Annabel knows we're there and will unlock the room if you say the magic words "GHC Steering Committee". See you soon, Richard From mail at joachim-breitner.de Wed Aug 21 11:57:52 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:57:52 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP Message-ID: Hi Committee, some of us (2×Simon, Iavor, Richard, Eric, me) met over lunch at ICFP and discussed tweaks to the process, and came up with the following changes. Of course we want to give the other members a chance to comment and speak if up if something is a bad idea, so we won’t be implementing the immediately (but preferably soon). * Proposals that are in “Pending committee decision” phase will have a [committee] tag appended to the title, so that we can filter emails by that status. * We drop the restrictions for non-authors to comment in that phase. It doesn't work and sometimes we do want the insights of the others. * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that it is ok and not impolite to nudge the shepherd if the process seems stalled. * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that turning a proposal back with “needs review” is not a bad thing. * If we have later proposals that are not stand-alone proposals, but rather changes to existing ones, and those get accepted, then the updated proposal should link back to the changing PR, just like it links to the original PR (e.g “This proposal was discussed at … and amended by ….”). * We will stop renumbering proposals sequentially, but instead simply use the PR number, so that we no longer have this two-number confusion. (We should have done that from the start :-() * We will actually re-number the already accepted proposals, but leave the old files there to point to the new location, so that existig links stay valid. (Either as symlinks or simply as very short files, I will see how GitHub presents either of these options). * We considered making it a requirement that authors find a number of “endorsers” for their proposal, but were not sure if that is useful. But we would like to experiment with that concept, so we would add a section to the template that will contain a list of endorsers, and endorsers could indicate to the author that they endorse the proposal on the GitHub comment thread, and the authors then adds them. The expectation for an endorser is that “they support the proposal as if they were an authors, and they would happily have submitted it themselves, had they had the idea and time.” Endorsers have no hard role in the process, but hopefully ensure that proposals are seen and read and checked by more people before submission, and we get a bit more signal by seeing how many people and who also wants this. * Although most people were at least mildly in favor, we kicked the question of fixed terms down the road. But I will send out the brief “how do you feel about your work in the committee” questionaire that we had a few months ago around once in a while, with the explicit purpose to nudge members to maybe get more involved again, or plan to rotate out. What do you think? Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From simonpj at microsoft.com Wed Aug 21 12:49:29 2019 From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:49:29 +0000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: | * If we have later proposals that are not stand-alone proposals, but | rather changes to existing ones, and those get accepted, then | the updated proposal should link back to the changing PR, just | like it links to the original PR | (e.g “This proposal was discussed at … and amended by ….”). I don't find this very clear. I think what you mean is: * To amend an accepted proposal #N (where #N is actually the # of the original PR, no longer renumbered), you submit a PR (perhaps #K) that is a diff to the accepted proposal. * That amendment might be minor (add clarification, examples) in which case the Secretary may accept it directly. Result: a modified accepted proposal #N. * Alternatively, it might be substantive, and should be debated by the community and committee. In that case it goes through the same process as any other proposal. But once accepted, the result is, once again, a modified accepted proposal #N. * In the latter case it is helpful if the PR is explicit that it's an edit for an existing accepted propsal (not a fresh proposal), and gives pointers a rendered version the original accepted proposal, the diff, and the proposed final outcome after applying the diff. Have I understood correctly? Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 21 August 2019 12:58 | To: ghc-steering-committee | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP | | Hi Committee, | | some of us (2×Simon, Iavor, Richard, Eric, me) met over lunch at ICFP and | discussed tweaks to the process, and came up with the following changes. | Of course we want to give the other members a chance to comment and speak | if up if something is a bad idea, so we won’t be implementing the | immediately (but preferably soon). | | * Proposals that are in “Pending committee decision” phase will | have a [committee] tag appended to the title, so that we can filter | emails by that status. | | * We drop the restrictions for non-authors to comment in that phase. | It doesn't work and sometimes we do want the insights of the others. | | * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that it is ok | and not impolite to nudge the shepherd if the process seems stalled. | | * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that turning | a proposal back with “needs review” is not a bad thing. | | * If we have later proposals that are not stand-alone proposals, but | rather changes to existing ones, and those get accepted, then | the updated proposal should link back to the changing PR, just | like it links to the original PR | (e.g “This proposal was discussed at … and amended by ….”). | | * We will stop renumbering proposals sequentially, but instead simply | use the PR number, so that we no longer have this two-number | confusion. (We should have done that from the start :-() | | * We will actually re-number the already accepted proposals, but leave | the old files there to point to the new location, so that existig | links stay valid. | (Either as symlinks or simply as very short files, I will see how | GitHub presents either of these options). | | * We considered making it a requirement that authors find a number of | “endorsers” for their proposal, but were not sure if that is useful. | But we would like to experiment with that concept, so we would add a | section to the template that will contain a list of endorsers, and | endorsers could indicate to the author that they endorse the | proposal on the GitHub comment thread, and the authors then adds | them. | | The expectation for an endorser is that “they support the proposal | as if they were an authors, and they would happily have submitted | it themselves, had they had the idea and time.” | | Endorsers have no hard role in the process, but hopefully ensure | that proposals are seen and read and checked by more people before | submission, and we get a bit more signal by seeing how many people | and who also wants this. | | * Although most people were at least mildly in favor, we kicked the | question of fixed terms down the road. But I will send out the | brief “how do you feel about your work in the committee” | questionaire that we had a few months ago around once in a while, | with the explicit purpose to nudge members to maybe get more | involved again, or plan to rotate out. | | | What do you think? | | Cheers, | Joachim | | | | | | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail at joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ | | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee From mail at joachim-breitner.de Wed Aug 21 12:56:59 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:56:59 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8FAB21FF-A665-41D1-8F24-548A9F79A977@joachim-breitner.de> You are adding some points, but all sensible and good. Am 21. August 2019 14:49:29 MESZ schrieb Simon Peyton Jones : >| * If we have later proposals that are not stand-alone proposals, but >| rather changes to existing ones, and those get accepted, then >| the updated proposal should link back to the changing PR, just >| like it links to the original PR >| (e.g “This proposal was discussed at … and amended by ….”). > >I don't find this very clear. I think what you mean is: > >* To amend an accepted proposal #N (where #N is actually the # of the > original PR, no longer renumbered), you submit a PR (perhaps #K) > that is a diff to the accepted proposal. > >* That amendment might be minor (add clarification, examples) in which > case the Secretary may accept it directly. Result: a modified > accepted proposal #N. > >* Alternatively, it might be substantive, and should be debated by > the community and committee. In that case it goes through the > same process as any other proposal. But once accepted, the result > is, once again, a modified accepted proposal #N. > >* In the latter case it is helpful if the PR is explicit that it's an > edit for an existing accepted propsal (not a fresh proposal), and > gives pointers a rendered version the original accepted proposal, > the diff, and the proposed final outcome after applying the diff. > >Have I understood correctly? > >Simon > >| -----Original Message----- >| From: ghc-steering-committee > >| On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner >| Sent: 21 August 2019 12:58 >| To: ghc-steering-committee >| Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at >ICFP >| >| Hi Committee, >| >| some of us (2×Simon, Iavor, Richard, Eric, me) met over lunch at ICFP >and >| discussed tweaks to the process, and came up with the following >changes. >| Of course we want to give the other members a chance to comment and >speak >| if up if something is a bad idea, so we won’t be implementing the >| immediately (but preferably soon). >| >| * Proposals that are in “Pending committee decision” phase will >| have a [committee] tag appended to the title, so that we can >filter >| emails by that status. >| >| * We drop the restrictions for non-authors to comment in that phase. >| It doesn't work and sometimes we do want the insights of the >others. >| >| * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that it is ok >| and not impolite to nudge the shepherd if the process seems >stalled. >| >| * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that turning >| a proposal back with “needs review” is not a bad thing. >| >| * If we have later proposals that are not stand-alone proposals, but >| rather changes to existing ones, and those get accepted, then >| the updated proposal should link back to the changing PR, just >| like it links to the original PR >| (e.g “This proposal was discussed at … and amended by ….”). >| >| * We will stop renumbering proposals sequentially, but instead >simply >| use the PR number, so that we no longer have this two-number >| confusion. (We should have done that from the start :-() >| >| * We will actually re-number the already accepted proposals, but >leave >| the old files there to point to the new location, so that existig >| links stay valid. >| (Either as symlinks or simply as very short files, I will see how >| GitHub presents either of these options). >| >| * We considered making it a requirement that authors find a number >of >| “endorsers” for their proposal, but were not sure if that is >useful. >| But we would like to experiment with that concept, so we would add >a >| section to the template that will contain a list of endorsers, and >| endorsers could indicate to the author that they endorse the >| proposal on the GitHub comment thread, and the authors then adds >| them. >| >| The expectation for an endorser is that “they support the proposal >| as if they were an authors, and they would happily have submitted >| it themselves, had they had the idea and time.” >| >| Endorsers have no hard role in the process, but hopefully ensure >| that proposals are seen and read and checked by more people before >| submission, and we get a bit more signal by seeing how many people >| and who also wants this. >| >| * Although most people were at least mildly in favor, we kicked the >| question of fixed terms down the road. But I will send out the >| brief “how do you feel about your work in the committee” >| questionaire that we had a few months ago around once in a while, >| with the explicit purpose to nudge members to maybe get more >| involved again, or plan to rotate out. >| >| >| What do you think? >| >| Cheers, >| Joachim >| >| >| >| >| >| -- >| Joachim Breitner >| mail at joachim-breitner.de >| http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ >| >| _______________________________________________ >| 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 Wed Aug 21 14:56:50 2019 From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:56:50 +0000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: | * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that turning | a proposal back with “needs review” is not a bad thing. I think we could be more precise. Specifically, if significant new technical questions arise during committee discussion, then I think it should be positively encouraged to go back to discussion phase, so that the author can update the proposal to address the technical questions, and (when the discussion dies down and the author is satisfied), resbumit. In this way proposals should languish in "committee review" status for less long. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 21 August 2019 12:58 | To: ghc-steering-committee | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP | | Hi Committee, | | some of us (2×Simon, Iavor, Richard, Eric, me) met over lunch at ICFP and | discussed tweaks to the process, and came up with the following changes. | Of course we want to give the other members a chance to comment and speak | if up if something is a bad idea, so we won’t be implementing the | immediately (but preferably soon). | | * Proposals that are in “Pending committee decision” phase will | have a [committee] tag appended to the title, so that we can filter | emails by that status. | | * We drop the restrictions for non-authors to comment in that phase. | It doesn't work and sometimes we do want the insights of the others. | | * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that it is ok | and not impolite to nudge the shepherd if the process seems stalled. | | * We will update wording in the README to tell authors that turning | a proposal back with “needs review” is not a bad thing. | | * If we have later proposals that are not stand-alone proposals, but | rather changes to existing ones, and those get accepted, then | the updated proposal should link back to the changing PR, just | like it links to the original PR | (e.g “This proposal was discussed at … and amended by ….”). | | * We will stop renumbering proposals sequentially, but instead simply | use the PR number, so that we no longer have this two-number | confusion. (We should have done that from the start :-() | | * We will actually re-number the already accepted proposals, but leave | the old files there to point to the new location, so that existig | links stay valid. | (Either as symlinks or simply as very short files, I will see how | GitHub presents either of these options). | | * We considered making it a requirement that authors find a number of | “endorsers” for their proposal, but were not sure if that is useful. | But we would like to experiment with that concept, so we would add a | section to the template that will contain a list of endorsers, and | endorsers could indicate to the author that they endorse the | proposal on the GitHub comment thread, and the authors then adds | them. | | The expectation for an endorser is that “they support the proposal | as if they were an authors, and they would happily have submitted | it themselves, had they had the idea and time.” | | Endorsers have no hard role in the process, but hopefully ensure | that proposals are seen and read and checked by more people before | submission, and we get a bit more signal by seeing how many people | and who also wants this. | | * Although most people were at least mildly in favor, we kicked the | question of fixed terms down the road. But I will send out the | brief “how do you feel about your work in the committee” | questionaire that we had a few months ago around once in a while, | with the explicit purpose to nudge members to maybe get more | involved again, or plan to rotate out. | | | What do you think? | | Cheers, | Joachim | | | | | | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail at joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ | | _______________________________________________ | 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 Wed Aug 21 14:58:55 2019 From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:58:55 +0000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Steering committee thoughts Message-ID: (Resend because I stupidly sent it to the wrong address. Joachim's summary really post-dates this email.) Friends Here are a collection of suggestions that we might discuss at our meeting today, about managing expectations in the GHC proposals process. Factors at work: * Proposal authors are sometimes quite invested in their work, and expect prompt feedback. * Yet committee members are volunteers with day-jobs, and reviewing proposals is a kind of blank cheque on their time, and they are doing the community a great service by being willing to do that reviewing. * Finally, to an author the benefits of acceptance are sharply-focused and immediate; but the costs are blurry and deferred. (I'm thinking of costs like: consistency of design, complexity of the language, implementation burden over time..) Balancing these is hard. I've seen discussion that boils down to a mis-match of expectations. Here are some concrete suggestions for things that might contribute to making expectations clearer and more explicit. All of the numbers (four years, two weeks) are just straw-men... the first thing is to decide if we want any of these thing s in principle. * Make service on the GHC Steering Committee a fixed 4-yr term, with staggered dates so two people retire each year. Renomination is allowed; but the expectation is that fresh blood is preferred unless there is a clear reason to the contrary. As I've said in earlier email, I think this is just basic good practice for any committee. Current membership is here. I'd quite like not to have the reviewing load, but I think that Simon and I should probably be exceptions to this rule * Write down the constituencies we'd like to see represented on the steering committee; invite members to self-designate which constituencies they feel well equipped to represent; and then add that as a column to the table you have helpfully made. This will help to show gaps when we are seeking nominations. * For shepherding, make it clear what the expectations are: no shepherded thread should be dormant for more than two weeks without the shepherd making a proposal for the next step. And even if actively discussed, the shepherd should guide the committee to a conclusion (accept, push back to author) within two months. Big proposals may need longer, so the shepherd should be free to (explicitly) propose a different timescale. * For committee membership, write down expectations about their participation. Something like * Participate actively in at least some proposals in the discuss-and-refine phase. * Review every proposal that is submitted to the committee, within three weeks, and offer a view - even if that view is "I have read the proposal completely but I do not have enough expertise in this area to express a well-informed opinion" * Act as the shepherd for a small number of proposals (see expectations of shepherds). Thanks Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric at seidel.io Fri Aug 23 19:48:10 2019 From: eric at seidel.io (Eric Seidel) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 21:48:10 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] =?utf-8?q?Please_review_=23160=3A=09NoTo?= =?utf-8?q?plevelFieldSelectors=2C_Shepherd=3A_Eric?= In-Reply-To: <145d8a47-7e28-4455-ba30-b9bb39007b32@www.fastmail.com> References: <145d8a47-7e28-4455-ba30-b9bb39007b32@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <5e84d80a-be81-481b-b675-8af226288c20@www.fastmail.com> This proposal has now been accepted. It's the first proposal to be accepted since we decided to stop renumbering them, so don't let the gap confuse you! On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, at 14:44, Eric Seidel wrote: > I have recommended acceptance. Please discuss at > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/160#issuecomment-498239960 (this links to the beginning of the committee discussion, to avoid having to scroll through the public comments). > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, at 16:00, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Dear Committee, > > > > this is your secretary speaking: > > > > NoToplevelFieldSelectors > > have been proposed by Simon Hafner > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/160 > > https://github.com/reactormonk/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0000-no-toplevel-field-selectors.rst > > > > I propose Eric as the Shepherd, because I know what you did last summer > > (namely look at that propsoal). > > > > Please reach consensus as described in > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process > > In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be > > rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps > > described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the > > proposal” in the above link. > > > > Thanks, > > Joachim > > -- > > Joachim Breitner > > mail at joachim-breitner.de > > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > > > > Attachments: > > * signature.asc From mail at joachim-breitner.de Sat Aug 24 09:21:45 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 11:21:45 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 21.08.2019, 13:57 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > * We will stop renumbering proposals sequentially, but instead simply > use the PR number, so that we no longer have this two-number > confusion. (We should have done that from the start :-() looks like Eric and Richard have already done that for two recent proposals. So consider this a fact now. > * We will actually re-number the already accepted proposals, but leave > the old files there to point to the new location, so that existig > links stay valid. > (Either as symlinks or simply as very short files, I will see how > GitHub presents either of these options). Guess I better do that now as well… Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From mail at joachim-breitner.de Sat Aug 24 09:48:27 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 11:48:27 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Results of committee meeting at ICFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3d535bd0b0d33c4f9c431bc217d479c5697edb99.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, Am Samstag, den 24.08.2019, 11:21 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > > * We will actually re-number the already accepted proposals, but leave > > the old files there to point to the new location, so that existig > > links stay valid. > > (Either as symlinks or simply as very short files, I will see how > > GitHub presents either of these options). > > Guess I better do that now as well… done. The band-aid is off. The directory is a bit of a mess now, with many proposals duplicated, but that is unavoidable, I fear. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/