[ghc-steering-committee] Procedural change vote

[Simon Marlow]

AB > B > A > 0

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 23:54, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:

> AB > B > A > 0
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019, at 16:13, Christopher Allen wrote:
> > AB > B > A > 0
> >
> > I don't believe we should do nothing when someone has protested in good
> faith.
> >
> > I don't think GitHub discussion alone properly addresses their
> > concerns and objections as well as the "B" option, but the best option
> > overall seems to be AB to my mind. Transparency + responsiveness.
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:41 PM Simon Peyton Jones via
> > ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > AB > B > A > 0
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > | -----Original Message-----
> > > | From: ghc-steering-committee <
> ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>
> > > | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
> > > | Sent: 01 May 2019 19:51
> > > | To: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> > > | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Procedural change vote
> > > |
> > > | 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/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > >
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris Allen
> > Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20190502/260622af/attachment.html>