[ghc-steering-committee] Procedural change vote

[Joachim Breitner]

Dear committee,

quick recap: one of our valued proposal writers, Matthew, expressed
unhappiness about our discussion proposal, with two important (but not
the only complains) issues the inability to react to a looming
rejection, and general bad insight into the discussion. Based on that
feedback (thanks again, Matt!) we discussed various options. Discussion
has ebbed down, and because it affects our policies, I’d like to hold a
formal vote.

There are three possible changes to consider, plus the option of doing
nothing. The options are

A. All discussion on GitHub.

   Our process essentially stays the same, but all discussion happens
   on GitHub. The mailing list is used only for status messages (new
   proposal, new recommendation, result, regular summary messages).
   During the deliberation phase, we will ask bystanders (non-members,
   non-authors) to refrain from making the discussion noisy.

   Pros: Best visibility. Easy to get feedback from authors. No
   fragmented discussion places.

   Cons: Less separation of discussion, less of a “protected space” for
   us”, possibly more noise, can’t technically enforce that nobody else
   comments

B. Shepherd discussion looming rejection with the authors first.

   This keeps the discussion on the mailing list, but the shepherd,
   before recommending to reject a proposal, needs to _first_ lay out
   their reasons on GitHub, wait for the authors to rebut, and possibly
   discusses with them.

   I spelled out possible wording of this already on
   https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/221

Pros: Authors are taken more serious, have a say, while keeping our 
discussion separate

   Cons: More work for shepherd. Incentives are set to lean towards
   just recommending acceptance. Authors don't get to rebut if shepherd
   wants to accept, but then the committee leans towards rejection.

AB. The combination of the two above

   I.e. author rebuttal before shepherd recommends rejection
   but then _also_ the committee discussion on GitHub

   Also spelled out already on
   https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/225

0. Do nothing.


Please vote by responding to this thread with a linear ordering of your
preferences. For example, my vote is

   AB > B > A > 0

Please cast a vote until Sunday May 5th. You can change your vote any
time until voting is concluded. Voting will be concluded when no votes
have been cast, but not before Sunday May 5th. We will accept the
option that is preferred over any other option by a majority of the
votes.


Cheers,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20190501/3101c0fd/attachment.sig>