[ghc-steering-committee] #380 GHC2021: How to proceed?

Eric Seidel eric at seidel.io
Sat Dec 19 21:02:45 UTC 2020

One other argument for allowing some more time for discussion: it's the holiday season and people are likely to be busy. I know Arnaud mentioned he would be completely offline for the next couple weeks.

Maybe it would make sense to timebox ourselves to the first or second week of January instead?

> On Dec 19, 2020, at 14:40, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> Dear Committee, especially dear Simons,
> when we originally outlined the process for determining what GHC2021
> would be, we aimed for a four week period of discussion, at the end of
> which we just go with whatever the ballots say.
> That four week period would end next Tuesday.
> Now, maybe unsurprisingly, there are many discussions going on, both
> about concrete extensions and also meta-questions (e.g. should we use
> GHC2021 to spread certain best practices? Can a certain class of users
> expect to not have to turn on other extensions? Do we want to preserve
> the property of some extensions as heralds for a certain kind or style
> of code?).
> This poses the question:
> Should we stick to the process, give everyone a chance to revise their
> votes, and call it a day on Tuesday?
> Or would that just lead to foul compromises, and we should keep
> debating until we have more clarity?
> In favor of sticking to the process:
> We expected that something like GHC2021 will cause lots and lots of
> discussions, many of them related to opinions, and there will likely
> never be a obvious, clear, definite consensus on what the “best”
> GHC2021 is. That’s why we set out with a time limit, as picking _some_
> GHC2021 (with plenty of obvious extensions safely in) with reasonable
> effort is better than holding long and very time-consuming discussions
> with diminishing returns. Also, there will be a later iteration to iron
> out the wrinkles that we didn’t get to do this round.
> In favor of continuing the discussion:
> The discussion is fruitful and interesting. We (well, certainly I)
> learned a fair bit about the various extensions. Also, discussing the
> meta-questions and coming to an agreement there could help us produce a
> more principled, consistent GHC2021, and maybe even help us understand
> the various purposes and goals of the extensions mechanism beyond
> GHC2021. And if, I mean when, we finish these discussions, we have
> likely produced a “better” GHC2021.
> Personally, I’m leaning towards time-boxing the discussion and
> concluding the vote on Tuesday. That said, if the committee has energy
> and motivation to continue debating, I’m certainly up for that (my next
> two weeks will be relatively quiet, and I might enjoy diving into long
> discussions – you’ve been warned).
> I think it would be best if the chars make a judgment call as to how we
> should proceed. Simon, Simon: How do you want us to proceed?
> 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

More information about the ghc-steering-committee mailing list