[ghc-steering-committee] committee constitution

[Richard Eisenberg]

Resuming this thread now that the POPL deadline has passed.

> On Jun 24, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am not really keen on putting these labels on folks, so my preference would be to not bake this into the process.
> 
> I am also not sure what problem we are solving though.

That's a good point. The immediate problem is that I worry that some accepted proposals have important ramifications for Haddock, and we have done a poor job at considering these ramifications. We could solve that problem directly, by (for example) adding a new required section to proposals. But I see this problem as a symptom of the lack of diverse representation on the steering committee. (Here, I am talking about diversity in terms of interests/areas of active engagement, not in terms of identity/background. Diversity in terms of identity/background is another important problem, and arguably more pernicious, but not one I am addressing in this thread.) Recalling that we started this steering committee with a goal of diverse representation, I thought we should perhaps return to that, in the hopes that the committee can better represent the community.

I admit that, beyond Haddock, I do not have a concrete example of actions we have taken in which we're not representing the community. So you might say that I have a solution in search of a problem, but I do think addressing this would be good for our committee (and for the language).

----------

To summarize where we are in this thread:

I asked:
> 
> How should we ensure that various constituencies are well served by our process?
> 
>  A. By having shepherds reach out to community members external to the committee who can share their expert opinion
>  B. By maintaining a list of constituencies that the committee membership covers (ideally)

I said B
Vitaly said A+B
Joachim said A
Iavor said neither

Do others have opinions?

Thanks,
Richard

> Iavor
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 04:58 Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 24.06.2020, 11:57 +0100 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> >  A. By having shepherds reach out to community members external to the committee who can share their expert opinion
> >  B. By maintaining a list of constituencies that the committee membership covers (ideally)
> > 
> > These can be combined, or we could do neither. (Right now, we do neither.)
> 
> I think we have sometimes used A. For example with the proposal about
> Arrow something, we (or the author?) reached out the likely affected
> library authors.
> 
> I am slightly favoring A (less formal, less process overhead, maybe
> more flexible).
> 
> Cheers,
> Joachim
> 
> -- 
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ <http://www.joachim-breitner.de/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee <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/20200713/bb143602/attachment.html>