From mail at joachim-breitner.de Sun Jun 2 20:00:08 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2019 22:00:08 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #160: NoToplevelFieldSelectors, Shepherd: Eric Message-ID: 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/ -------------- 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 Mon Jun 3 12:44:34 2019 From: eric at seidel.io (Eric Seidel) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:44:34 -0400 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] =?utf-8?q?Please_review_=23160=3A=09NoTo?= =?utf-8?q?plevelFieldSelectors=2C_Shepherd=3A_Eric?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <145d8a47-7e28-4455-ba30-b9bb39007b32@www.fastmail.com> 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 Thu Jun 6 09:06:14 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 11:06:14 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #231: Record with syntax, Shepherd: Simon Marlow Message-ID: <795dead0df5a0e3c8c6758dbd6f50b581403a335.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Record `with` syntax has been proposed by Rohan Jacob-Rao https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 https://github.com/rohanjr/ghc-proposals/blob/record-with-syntax/proposals/0000-record-with-syntax.rst I propose Simon as the Shepherd, because I everyone else has something on their plate. 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Fri Jun 7 07:24:48 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 09:24:48 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion on #216, LocalDo Message-ID: <9afc48eb91e07afd3b2e44439eec267c6f5d5883.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hello, as I explained in the post at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/216#issuecomment-499785081 I recommend accepting the Local Do proposal. Please join the discussion there. 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Jun 11 08:09:19 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:09:19 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439ec88ffaec54958a6714f0def48895e7dbebd1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi Simon, note that my cis.upenn.edu address will soon vanish with a puff; better use mail at joachim-breitner.de. Please allow me to respond on-list, I am sure you are not the only one who is confused by this. Yes, the relabeling was maybe the biggest mistake in our process: Proposals first have a number as Pull Request, but when they are accepted, they get a new, unrelated sequential number. We should have just re-used the PR number and have non-sequential numbers for accepted proposals. I wonder if we can still fix this. Nobody is really using the “accepted” number, so maybe it is fine? > Would it be possible to have a single list of all the proposals, with > their status? The official list of all accepted proposals is https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/master/proposals And the list for PRs is https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls where you can also filter by label, i.e. status (most links from the start page go this, with various filters applied). If someone is eager to do some hacking, one could aggregate all that in a fancy overview page somewhere (else), but I am hesitant to create such code, not because it has to be coded (that’s fun), but it has to be maintained and kept running and understood by everyone. > It would be v helpful if, for accepted proposals, the link pointed to > the canonical, final version of the proposal, and gave its canonical > final number. You mean a link “Accepted proposal” at the top of the discussion thread? Yes, that would be useful; it’s just one more bit of tedious work. Cheers, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2019, 07:41 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: > Joachim > I get very confused about GHC proposals and how to find the “right one”. > Here’s an example. We have > Proposal 54: Top-level kind signatures (instead of CUSKs) > Proposal 36: Top-level kind signatures > Apparently they are the same. Richard writes > When a proposal gets proposed, it is a pull request and is assigned a number. After it gets accepted, it is assigned a sequential accepted proposal number. So not-yet-decided proposals are numbered among all such proposals, and accepted proposals are numbered among all such proposals. This is perhaps confusing, but it's what we currently do. > You can get from an accepted proposal to its pull request by clicking the link at the top of the proposal. > Joachim often labels the final resting place of PRs; this one appears overlooked. I've added a link. > I don’t think I’d understood this change of numbering. So I wonder > Would it be possible to lay out the scheme on the GHC proposal home page somewhere? > Would it be possible to have a single list of all the proposals, with their status? At the moment, if you scroll around on the home page you can find various lists, but it would really help to bring them together. > Or, I suppose, two lists: one for PRs and one for accepted proposals. (In each case they may have different labels.) > It would be v helpful if, for accepted proposals, the link pointed to the canonical, final version of the proposal, and gave its canonical final number. > We have quite a lot of proposals, which you do a great job of managing. But I get a bit lost sometimes. > Thanks > Simon -- 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 simonpj at microsoft.com Tue Jun 11 09:05:47 2019 From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:05:47 +0000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals In-Reply-To: <439ec88ffaec54958a6714f0def48895e7dbebd1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <439ec88ffaec54958a6714f0def48895e7dbebd1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: | I wonder if we can still fix this. Nobody is really using the “accepted” | number, so maybe it is fine? I don't have a strong opinion -- others may. But it would help, *on the home page* https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals to have clear lists: (A) List of all not-yet-accepted proposals, along with their status. (B) List of all accepted proposals, along with their status. (Status = labels, I guess.) For (B) the link you give https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls seems good, though additional guidance (along with the link) would be helpful. For example: * In this list, accepted proposals won't show up, because they should be closed. * You can filter by status by clicking on the "Labels" button. When I fitered by "dormant" I only saw three -- that was a lot fewer than I expected. For (A) it's sad not to have their labels; e.g. implemented or not. Is that hard to do? Thanks! Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Joachim Breitner | Sent: 11 June 2019 09:09 | To: Simon Peyton Jones | Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | Subject: Re: GHC proposals | | Hi Simon, | | note that my cis.upenn.edu address will soon vanish with a puff; better | use mail at joachim-breitner.de. | | Please allow me to respond on-list, I am sure you are not the only one who | is confused by this. | | | Yes, the relabeling was maybe the biggest mistake in our process: | Proposals first have a number as Pull Request, but when they are accepted, | they get a new, unrelated sequential number. We should have just re-used | the PR number and have non-sequential numbers for accepted proposals. | | I wonder if we can still fix this. Nobody is really using the “accepted” | number, so maybe it is fine? | | | > Would it be possible to have a single list of all the proposals, with | > their status? | | The official list of all accepted proposals is https://github.com/ghc- | proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/master/proposals | | And the list for PRs is | https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls | where you can also filter by label, i.e. status (most links from the start | page go this, with various filters applied). | | | If someone is eager to do some hacking, one could aggregate all that in a | fancy overview page somewhere (else), but I am hesitant to create such | code, not because it has to be coded (that’s fun), but it has to be | maintained and kept running and understood by everyone. | | > It would be v helpful if, for accepted proposals, the link pointed to | > the canonical, final version of the proposal, and gave its canonical | > final number. | | You mean a link “Accepted proposal” at the top of the discussion thread? | Yes, that would be useful; it’s just one more bit of tedious work. | | Cheers, | Joachim | | Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2019, 07:41 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: | > Joachim | > I get very confused about GHC proposals and how to find the “right one”. | > Here’s an example. We have | > Proposal 54: Top-level kind signatures (instead of CUSKs) Proposal 36: | > Top-level kind signatures Apparently they are the same. Richard writes | > When a proposal gets proposed, it is a pull request and is assigned a | number. After it gets accepted, it is assigned a sequential accepted | proposal number. So not-yet-decided proposals are numbered among all such | proposals, and accepted proposals are numbered among all such proposals. | This is perhaps confusing, but it's what we currently do. | > You can get from an accepted proposal to its pull request by clicking | the link at the top of the proposal. | > Joachim often labels the final resting place of PRs; this one appears | overlooked. I've added a link. | > I don’t think I’d understood this change of numbering. So I wonder | > Would it be possible to lay out the scheme on the GHC proposal home page | somewhere? | > Would it be possible to have a single list of all the proposals, with | their status? At the moment, if you scroll around on the home page you | can find various lists, but it would really help to bring them together. | > Or, I suppose, two lists: one for PRs and one for accepted proposals. | > (In each case they may have different labels.) It would be v helpful if, | for accepted proposals, the link pointed to the canonical, final version | of the proposal, and gave its canonical final number. | > We have quite a lot of proposals, which you do a great job of managing. | But I get a bit lost sometimes. | > Thanks | > Simon | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail at joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Jun 11 11:47:39 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:47:39 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals In-Reply-To: References: <439ec88ffaec54958a6714f0def48895e7dbebd1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <4f3a0927728155a25c260a24c2712a693cfd4d2f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2019, 09:05 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: > > I wonder if we can still fix this. Nobody is really using the “accepted” > > number, so maybe it is fine? > > I don't have a strong opinion -- others may. > > But it would help, *on the home page* > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals > to have clear lists: > > (A) List of all not-yet-accepted proposals, along with their status. > (B) List of all accepted proposals, along with their status. for (A) we have these links - ≡ List of proposals under discussion - ≡ List of proposals waiting for shepherd - ≡ List of proposals under review - ≡ List of dormant proposals (but we also eventually close proposals, so this is not precise) All these lists point to the discussion for a proposal, not the proposal itself. There is no good way of showing the union of these proposals, as GitHub’s label query language is not expressive enough (no union of queries) I can add a section to the homepage that collects all these links, if they are not easy enough to find right now. For (B) we (now, looks like I forgot to push a few weeks ago) point to - https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/master/proposals which is accurate, but not pretty and there are no labels. If we start updating the top post of reach proposal to point to the final thing, then using this for (B) would work: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+label%3AAccepted+ It again points to the discussion page, which is a bit odd for accepted proposals, but if there is a clear link on top “accepted proposal”, and maybe some explanation “This proposal has been accepted and can be found at; this discussion is here for reference”, then that might be fine? This view would also clearly show the “Implemented” label, which we have to maintain, of course. It’s a bit more work, but I guess it is the right thing to do. Will do it right away. > (Status = labels, I guess.) > > For (B) the link you give > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls > seems good, though additional guidance (along with the link) would be helpful. For example: > * In this list, accepted proposals won't show up, because they should > be closed. Yes, you need to disable the default filter, e.g. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q= or click on closed. > * You can filter by status by clicking on the "Labels" button. > > When I fitered by "dormant" I only saw three -- that was a lot fewer than I expected. Again, because by default GitHub only shows open PRs. Eventually, we or the authors close proposals. 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Jun 11 11:54:25 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:54:25 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Member survey In-Reply-To: <9d1a5cdb7336053ba34672caa481c3789ac28a72.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <5C339329-7B66-4535-B849-FD95A5CC952B@richarde.dev> <3cccb16a1c83340901905a705c566f240ce39ccf.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <9d1a5cdb7336053ba34672caa481c3789ac28a72.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Hi, Am Sonntag, den 26.05.2019, 10:42 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Am Donnerstag, den 23.05.2019, 10:47 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones > via ghc-steering-committee: > > OK, here's a suggestion for how to proceed: > > > > * Ask each existing member in to indicate their current state: > > a) I am happy as a member, feel I am contributing. > > b) I am willing to continue, but would also to be content to stand down > > c) I would quite like to stand down > > good idea. I will do that in individual private messages (to encourage > more honest replies), and summarize the results here. This is the tally: A) 6 B) 3 C) 0 no reply yet) 1 Based on this and general member activity I think there is room for 2 or 3 rotations. Shall I put out a call for nominations, following the same procedure as last year? This was the announcement https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2018-July/025491.html Shall I leave the paragraph in about a call for “conservative” members, or do we feel well-balanced? 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 a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 12:10:25 2019 From: a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com (Artem Pelenitsyn) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:10:25 +0300 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals In-Reply-To: <4f3a0927728155a25c260a24c2712a693cfd4d2f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <439ec88ffaec54958a6714f0def48895e7dbebd1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <4f3a0927728155a25c260a24c2712a693cfd4d2f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Dear Joachim, > * You can filter by status by clicking on the "Labels" button. > > > > When I fitered by "dormant" I only saw three -- that was a lot fewer > than I expected. > > Again, because by default GitHub only shows open PRs. Eventually, we or > the authors close proposals. > That being said, some dormant PRs are still open and unlabelled. I nearly randomly hit: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/183 this morning. I'm guessing, there may be more. -- Kind regards, Artem Pelenitsyn > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Jun 11 12:40:07 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:40:07 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals In-Reply-To: <4f3a0927728155a25c260a24c2712a693cfd4d2f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <439ec88ffaec54958a6714f0def48895e7dbebd1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <4f3a0927728155a25c260a24c2712a693cfd4d2f.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Hi, I just * Added easier to find links to https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals * Added the Implemented label to some proposals that have the `implemented` thing non-empty in the proposal file. (I rely on volunteers to indicate which proposals have been implemented; there is no good technical solution in place to automate or monitor that efficiently) * I went through all(!) accepted proposals, and added a link to the accepted version to the top of the discussion thread, e.g. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/6 This means that there is now a path the start page → list of accepted proposals → discussion page → proposal I hope I’ll be able to maintain this. Help is appreciated, in particular pinging me about implemented proposals. Enough tedious work for now. Cheers, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2019, 13:47 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2019, 09:05 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: > > > I wonder if we can still fix this. Nobody is really using the “accepted” > > > number, so maybe it is fine? > > > > I don't have a strong opinion -- others may. > > > > But it would help, *on the home page* > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals > > to have clear lists: > > > > (A) List of all not-yet-accepted proposals, along with their status. > > (B) List of all accepted proposals, along with their status. > > for (A) we have these links > - ≡ List of proposals under discussion > - ≡ List of proposals waiting for shepherd > - ≡ List of proposals under review > - ≡ List of dormant proposals > (but we also eventually close proposals, so this is not precise) > > All these lists point to the discussion for a proposal, not the > proposal itself. > > > There is no good way of showing the union of these proposals, as > GitHub’s label query language is not expressive enough (no union of > queries) > > I can add a section to the homepage that collects all these links, if > they are not easy enough to find right now. > > > For (B) we (now, looks like I forgot to push a few weeks ago) point to > - https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/master/proposals > which is accurate, but not pretty and there are no labels. > > If we start updating the top post of reach proposal to point to the > final thing, then using this for (B) would work: > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+label%3AAccepted+ > It again points to the discussion page, which is a bit odd for accepted > proposals, but if there is a clear link on top “accepted proposal”, and > maybe some explanation “This proposal has been accepted and can be > found at; this discussion is here for reference”, then that might be > fine? > > This view would also clearly show the “Implemented” label, which we > have to maintain, of course. > > It’s a bit more work, but I guess it is the right thing to do. Will do > it right away. > > > > > (Status = labels, I guess.) > > > > For (B) the link you give > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls > > seems good, though additional guidance (along with the link) would be helpful. For example: > > * In this list, accepted proposals won't show up, because they should > > be closed. > > Yes, you need to disable the default filter, e.g. > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q= > or click on closed. > > > * You can filter by status by clicking on the "Labels" button. > > > > When I fitered by "dormant" I only saw three -- that was a lot fewer than I expected. > > Again, because by default GitHub only shows open PRs. Eventually, we or > the authors close proposals. > > > Cheers, > Joachim > _______________________________________________ > 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/ -------------- 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 simonpj at microsoft.com Tue Jun 11 16:29:31 2019 From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:29:31 +0000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Member survey In-Reply-To: References: <5C339329-7B66-4535-B849-FD95A5CC952B@richarde.dev> <3cccb16a1c83340901905a705c566f240ce39ccf.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <9d1a5cdb7336053ba34672caa481c3789ac28a72.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Joachim Sounds good to me. I think the old advert is fine. Thanks Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 11 June 2019 12:54 | To: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Member survey | | Hi, | | Am Sonntag, den 26.05.2019, 10:42 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: | > Am Donnerstag, den 23.05.2019, 10:47 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones | > via ghc-steering-committee: | > > OK, here's a suggestion for how to proceed: | > > | > > * Ask each existing member in to indicate their current state: | > > a) I am happy as a member, feel I am contributing. | > > b) I am willing to continue, but would also to be content to stand | down | > > c) I would quite like to stand down | > | > good idea. I will do that in individual private messages (to encourage | > more honest replies), and summarize the results here. | | This is the tally: | | A) 6 | B) 3 | C) 0 | no reply yet) 1 | | Based on this and general member activity I think there is room for 2 or 3 | rotations. | | Shall I put out a call for nominations, following the same procedure as | last year? | | This was the announcement | https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2018-July/025491.html | Shall I leave the paragraph in about a call for “conservative” members, or | do we feel well-balanced? | | Cheers, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail at joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ From mail at joachim-breitner.de Wed Jun 12 20:20:32 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:20:32 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Request for Nominations to the GHC Steering Committee Message-ID: <90af96bdb996b5ab7e826281cbb6a5b10653538b.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear Haskell community, the GHC Steering committee is seeking nominations for two or three new member. The committee scrutinizes, nitpicks, improves, weights and eventually accepts or rejects proposals that extend or change the language supported by GHC and other (public-facing) aspects of GHC. Our processes are described at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals which is also the GitHub repository where proposals are proposed. We are looking for a member who has the ability * to understand such language extension proposals, * to find holes and missing corner cases in the specifications, * foresee the interaction with other language features and specifications, * comment constructively and improve the proposals, * judge the cost/benefit ratio and * finally come to a justifiable conclusion. We look for committee members who have some of these properties: * have substantial experience in writing Haskell applications or libraries, which they can use to inform judgements about the utility or otherwise of proposed features, * have made active contributions to the Haskell community, for some time, * have expertise in language design and implementation, in either Haskell or related languages, which they can share with us. The committee’s work requires a small, but non-trivial amount of time, especially when you are assigned a proposal for shepherding. We estimate the workload to be around 2 hours per week, and our process works best if members usually respond to technical emails within 1-2 weeks (within days is even better). Please keep that in mind if your email inbox is already overflowing. The GHC developers themselves are already well represented already. We seek Haskell _users_ more than GHC hackers. There is no shortage of people who are eager to get fancy new features into the language, both in the committee and the wider community. But each new feature imposes a cost, to implement, to learn, (particularly) through its unexpected interaction with other features. We need to strike a balance, one that encourages innovation (as GHC always has) while still making Haskell attractive for real-world production use and for teaching. We therefore explicitly invite “conservative” members of the community to join the committee. To make a nomination, please send an email to me (as the committee secretary) at mail at joachim-breitner.de until June 23th. I will distribute the nominations among the committee, and we will keep the nominations and our deliberations private. We explicitly encourage self-nominations. You can nominate others, but please obtain their explicit consent to do so. (We don’t want to choose someone who turns out to be unable to serve.) On behalf of the committee, Joachim Breitner -- 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 marlowsd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:45:26 2019 From: marlowsd at gmail.com (Simon Marlow) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:45:26 +0100 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please discuss #231: Record with syntax. Recommendation: accept In-Reply-To: <795dead0df5a0e3c8c6758dbd6f50b581403a335.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <795dead0df5a0e3c8c6758dbd6f50b581403a335.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: I've opened the committee discussion on proposal #231 "Record `with` syntax" by recommending acceptance. Please join in if you have comments, or remain silent if you agree: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 Cheers Simon On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 10:06, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Dear Committee, > > this is your secretary speaking: > > Record `with` syntax > has been proposed by Rohan Jacob-Rao > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 > > https://github.com/rohanjr/ghc-proposals/blob/record-with-syntax/proposals/0000-record-with-syntax.rst > > I propose Simon as the Shepherd, because I everyone else has something > on their plate. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Sun Jun 16 21:18:57 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:18:57 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion on #216, LocalDo In-Reply-To: <9afc48eb91e07afd3b2e44439eec267c6f5d5883.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <9afc48eb91e07afd3b2e44439eec267c6f5d5883.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Hi, Am Freitag, den 07.06.2019, 09:24 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > as I explained in the post at > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/216#issuecomment-499785081 > I recommend accepting the Local Do proposal. Please join the discussion there. JFTR: Discussion clearly shows that the proposal will benefit from more thought and work; changed status to “Needs revision”. 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 iavor.diatchki at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 16:13:52 2019 From: iavor.diatchki at gmail.com (Iavor Diatchki) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:13:52 -0700 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion on #214, Namespace specifiers In-Reply-To: <047eebee0e2fcbaebcc5b05a38469a92c6b81f86.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <047eebee0e2fcbaebcc5b05a38469a92c6b81f86.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: I've tagged #214 (Namespace specifiers) as "Pending Committee" review. Due to some confusion with the process on my part, I already sent an e-mail about this earlier, so we've already had some discussion on the topic, but if you have any additional input please chime in: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214 -Iavor On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:24 AM Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 31.05.2019, 11:15 -0700 schrieb Iavor Diatchki: > > I believe our new process is to have the discussion on Github, so > > please share your thoughts over there. > > > > I am a bit unclear about the steps in the new process (even though I > > voted for it :-), but as the shepherd I think I am supposed to make an > > initial? recommendation. > > > > If so, at the moment I am leaning towards a "reject": I do think > > that the proposal has identified a valid area for improvement, but I > > don't quite like the currently proposed solution---I wrote some > > comments on GIthub as to why. > > > > Obviously, that's just my opinion, and the discussion would benefit > > from more input from the committee. > > if you think it should be rejected, the idea is that you first discuss > this with the authors (on Github), to make sure that they had a chance > to respond to your criticism and make sure they feel understood. Once > that is settled, you follow the steps under > “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” on > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process > > HTH, > 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 Jun 19 08:05:53 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:05:53 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please vote on ExtraCommas Message-ID: <7c98bcc6a1b347764e0f3f25ad802651e34b75ae.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear Committee, because the discussion wasn’t leading anywhere anymore, we have called a vote on the ExtraCommas proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Please cast your vote! I will close the vote when all of us have voted, or after Sunday (June 26, one week of voting). (It seems that the general public also felt compelled to vote, and out of curiosity, I’ll tally these votes as well. I’m curious how representative we are.) Going into the future, we will have to decide if we want to do votes on GitHub or better here on the mailing list. 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Thu Jun 20 10:26:20 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:26:20 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Request for Nominations to the GHC Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <90af96bdb996b5ab7e826281cbb6a5b10653538b.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <90af96bdb996b5ab7e826281cbb6a5b10653538b.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 12.06.2019, 22:20 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > To make a nomination, please send an email to me (as the committee > secretary) at mail at joachim-breitner.de until June 23th. I will > distribute the nominations among the committee, and we will keep the > nominations and our deliberations private. we have three nominations so far; and three more days to go. If you know of anyone you’d like to see on the committe, now is a good time to nudge them. 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Mon Jun 24 10:16:00 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:16:00 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Request for Nominations to the GHC Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: <90af96bdb996b5ab7e826281cbb6a5b10653538b.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <8096141b2e043b8a2c85254ccd52c65a14c91dd2.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear List, Am Donnerstag, den 20.06.2019, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Am Mittwoch, den 12.06.2019, 22:20 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > > To make a nomination, please send an email to me (as the committee > > secretary) at mail at joachim-breitner.de until June 23th. I will > > distribute the nominations among the committee, and we will keep the > > nominations and our deliberations private. > > we have three nominations so far; and three more days to go. If you > know of anyone you’d like to see on the committe, now is a good time to > nudge them. we have four nominations. As last time, I will send the nomination texts to all members in private email, and ask you to rank the choices (including “None of the above”). The winners will then be determined by the Schulze Method (as used by Debian, FSFE and many other organizations). I will announce the result of the election on the mailing list, and privately thanks the other nominations, without revealing who they are. Cheers, Joachim [Schulze Method]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method -- 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Jun 25 08:46:19 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:46:19 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please vote on ExtraCommas In-Reply-To: <7c98bcc6a1b347764e0f3f25ad802651e34b75ae.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <7c98bcc6a1b347764e0f3f25ad802651e34b75ae.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <25f2e567bfecebaf001f9d810ad8fb3ef3a7efa0.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, if you have not voted on this issue yet, please do so until tomorrow, if you can. See https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87#issuecomment-502717839 for the list of options. Also, this PR shows that our process needs more tuning, maybe with clear deadline for the various stages, as Simon PJ has previously suggested. Cheers, Joachim Am Mittwoch, den 19.06.2019, 10:05 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Dear Committee, > > because the discussion wasn’t leading anywhere anymore, we have called > a vote on the ExtraCommas proposal: > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 > > Please cast your vote! > > I will close the vote when all of us have voted, or after Sunday (June > 26, one week of voting). > > (It seems that the general public also felt compelled to vote, and out > of curiosity, I’ll tally these votes as well. I’m curious how > representative we are.) > > Going into the future, we will have to decide if we want to do votes on > GitHub or better here on the mailing list. > > Cheers, > Joachim > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ -------------- 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Thu Jun 27 09:03:46 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:03:46 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please vote on ExtraCommas In-Reply-To: <25f2e567bfecebaf001f9d810ad8fb3ef3a7efa0.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <7c98bcc6a1b347764e0f3f25ad802651e34b75ae.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <25f2e567bfecebaf001f9d810ad8fb3ef3a7efa0.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: Hi, Vote on ExtraCommas concluded, with a very narrow win for “accept but not applying to tuples”. Cheers, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 25.06.2019, 10:46 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > if you have not voted on this issue yet, please do so until tomorrow, > if you can. See > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87#issuecomment-502717839 > for the list of options. > > Also, this PR shows that our process needs more tuning, maybe with > clear deadline for the various stages, as Simon PJ has previously > suggested. > > Cheers, > Joachim > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.06.2019, 10:05 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > > Dear Committee, > > > > because the discussion wasn’t leading anywhere anymore, we have called > > a vote on the ExtraCommas proposal: > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 > > > > Please cast your vote! > > > > I will close the vote when all of us have voted, or after Sunday (June > > 26, one week of voting). > > > > (It seems that the general public also felt compelled to vote, and out > > of curiosity, I’ll tally these votes as well. I’m curious how > > representative we are.) > > > > Going into the future, we will have to decide if we want to do votes on > > GitHub or better here on the mailing list. > > > > Cheers, > > Joachim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ -------------- 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 mail at joachim-breitner.de Sun Jun 30 15:12:04 2019 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 17:12:04 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #232: Ambiguous Type pragma, Shepherd: Richard Message-ID: Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Ambiguous Type pragma has been proposed by AntC2 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232 https://github.com/AntC2/ghc-proposals/blob/patch-2/proposals/AmbiguousType-pragma.rst I propose Richard 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/ -------------- 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: