[ghc-steering-committee] #380 GHC2021: How to proceed?
iavor.diatchki at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 22:35:09 UTC 2020
To me accepting things on Tuesday feels quite premature. I actually don't
even know what we'd be accepting.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:08 PM Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev> wrote:
> I'm in favor of keeping to the process -- and for keeping the discussion
> going. That is, we accept what we have on Tuesday. But we also use this
> experience to refine our criteria for GHC2021+n, depending on our chosen
> cadence. In particular, I think the discussion of whether extensions should
> be used to control language levels is very interesting, and I think we
> could get somewhere by continuing to work on this front.
> There is one final step I would advocate for, beyond accepting the
> extensions we have on Tuesday: we should do a quick check that they form a
> reasonable set. For example, it would be very strange to allow e.g.
> TypeFamilies without MonoLocalBinds, or to allow DataKinds but not
> KindSignatures. I haven't double-checked for whether we meet this standard,
> but we should.
> Thanks, Joachim, for steering this ship!
> > On Dec 19, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
> > 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>
> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-steering-committee