[ghc-steering-committee] Procedural change vote

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

If we decide to move the discussion to GitHub, I will certainly try that.

It can usually only serve as a reminder to hop onto GitHub again, though, as the GitHub comment notifications usually lack context.

In a long thread over a longer timespan, it is annoying to keep track of what you have read already and what’s new. I also find that a lot of people are not very consistent about citing the comments they are replying to, which makes it hard to disentangle multiple interleaved subthreads. 

I like GitHub for code, but for the discussion we are having, I don’t think the UI is really made for that.

Cheers,
Manuel

> Am 04.05.2019 um 14:28 schrieb Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io>:
> 
> The difficulty of keeping up with GitHub discussions is something a few of us have raised concerns about. On the GitHub discussion, someone suggested editing the title of a proposal once it’s been submitted to the committee (eg to add “under review”). This would let us create an email filter for committee-related notifications. 
> 
> Would that work for you?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On May 4, 2019, at 08:15, Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at justtesting.org> wrote:
>> 
>> B > 0 > A > AB
>> 
>> (It’s boring if everybody votes the same way. No, seriously. I have trouble finding the time to follow the discussion anyway. If it is in my mailbox, I go through the emails that catch my attention. If it is on GitHub, I’ll probably completely forget about it. GitHub email notifications seems not very helpful here as I get so many of them already, so they go into a special dev-related mailbox…)
>> 
>> Manuel
>> 
>>> Am 01.05.2019 um 20:51 schrieb Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>:
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>