[ghc-steering-committee] committee constitution

Tue Jun 23 08:44:07 UTC 2020

Hi,

I have an issue regarding the proposed list of constituencies:
GHC developer (2x)
Educator
Industry practitioner (2x)
Haddock developer
Researcher
IDE tooling developer
GHC fork developer (maybe)

We have the following positions for developers working on something
closely related to GHC:
Haddock developer
IDE tooling developer
GHC fork developer (or GHC API client, as Simon suggests)

What about cabal/stack? They both are closely related to GHC. No
Backpack support in stack makes the former a bit esoteric *language*
feature, for one example of such a relation. I don't think there is
any difference between IDE tooling or cabal/stack developers regarding
their membership in the Committee. Shouldn't we try to incorporate
them either? What about another tooling? Linters, code formatters,
independent parsers? Aren't there too many such developer categories?
How are we (or who?) supposed to choose between them?

In fact, I'd prefer temporary per proposal membership instead when a
shepherd invites someone to discuss and decide on the particular
proposal. Maybe we could have two or three unassigned "tooling
developer" positions for such cases.

Vitaly

пн, 22 июн. 2020 г. в 15:34, Simon Peyton Jones via
ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>:
>
> I agree with making a list of constituencies.  We could also list which constituencies we think the current membership reflects.  This gives a way for self-nominations to say “I fill a gap”.
>
>
>
> I’m not so keen on “GHC fork dev” and more keen on “GHC API client”, including plugins.  That overlaps with IDE tooling, but is not subsumed by IDE.
>
>
>
> Yes the list should be on our main home page.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
> Sent: 22 June 2020 12:04
> To: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
> Cc: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] committee constitution
>
>
>
> Broadening from my thoughts on having a Haddock representative, I wonder if we should aim to have a "balanced" committee. I seem to recall (but can't find evidence of, after ~5 minutes of searching) that we started this steering committee with the aim of representing various different interests. We even had, somewhere, I believe, a list of different constituencies we wished to include. When we have considered this kind of diversity when selecting new members, we've also generally worked with whatever nominations we've received, instead of seeking out particular people. I'd like to propose that we reify a set of constituencies that we aim to always represent. When someone retires from the committee, we would then both seek nominations and think creatively about folks to invite from the constituency(ies) that are being left vacant by the retirement.
>
>
>
> Here is an initial proposed list of constituencies. If there is a "2x", it means we should have at least two steering committee members from that constituency.
>
>
>
> GHC developer (2x)
>
> Educator
>
> Industry practitioner (2x)
>
> Haddock developer
>
> Researcher
>
> IDE tooling developer
>
> GHC fork developer (maybe)
>
>
>
> On GHC port developer: there seem to be a growing number of GHC forks, and it might be nice to incorporate someone in that position into our committee. Examples: GHCJS, Asterius, DAML.
>
>
>
> One individual can fill multiple constituency needs, and overrepresentation is fine.
>
>
>
> So, I ask two separate questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Should we have such a list?
>
>
>
> 2. If yes, what do we think of this list, in particular?
>
>
>
> It would be great to hear from everyone on the committee on this point. If we answer "yes" to (1), I would expect us to add the list to https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/README.rst and consult it when making future committee appointments.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I think having a committee member who's involved with `haddock` makes sense, as `haddock` really is very tightly coupled with GHC.  This, of course, presumes that Simon M is not actively involved with `haddock` anymore, otherwise we already have a representative.
>
>
>
> More generally, I think it is good if there is some overlap between various communities/organizations/projects, as it makes dissemination of information much smoother, and knowing what's happening in "the community", well, makes the community.
>
>
>
> I would recommend reaching out to Alec Theriault (`harpocrates` on git-hub).  I've worked with him in the past and he is very smart and thoughtful.    I have not spoken to him, so I am not sure if he'd be up for taking up the position, but if we do decide to invite Alec, I'd be happy to reach out and ask him.
>
>
>
> -Iavor
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:01 AM Cale Gibbard <cgibbard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In addition to this, it seems like the situation involving the
> relationship between commits on haddock and commits on GHC is
> currently somewhat unsatisfactory. In order to build an arbitrary
> commit on haddock, you need to know which commit of GHC to use to
> build it, but instead, the commits of GHC have a pointer to the
> haddock repo, rather than the other way around. I remember being
> surprised that the git submodule relationship wasn't at least in the
> opposite direction.
>
> I think it would make a fair amount of sense just to regard haddock as
> being a full-fledged part of GHC and perhaps just unify the
> repositories, since it's so intimately connected to GHC's internals
> anyway, but I might be unaware of other constraints on its development
> process.
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 11:35, Simon Peyton Jones via
> ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org> wrote:
> >
> > Good thought. Personally, I'd be happy to have a Haddock maintainer on the committee;
> > but I'd like them to be a full member, contributing to the discussion and shepherding proposals -- not merely acting as the Haddock liaison.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > |  -----Original Message-----
> > |  From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>
> > |  On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
> > |  Sent: 18 June 2020 22:29
> > |  To: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> > |  Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Haddock
> > |
> > |  Hi committee,
> > |
> > |  With a steady level of activity adding new features to GHC, I fear we may
> > |  be forgetting one important downstream client: Haddock. For a nice
> > |  example of how our decisions can cause trouble, see
> > |  https://github.com/goldfirere/singletons/issues/466#issuecomment-
> > |  646117067. Despite appearing on the singletons bug tracker, that comment
> > |  is all about Haddock support for https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-
> > |  proposals/blob/3dfec03b11e8829d7febbb7290c3183f752466d7/proposals/0054-
> > |  kind-signatures.rst, the -XStandaloneKindSignatures extension.
> > |
> > |  This makes me wonder: should we invite a maintainer of Haddock to be an
> > |  ex-officio (and voting) member of the committee? This would have two
> > |  salutary effects:
> > |  - It would force us to consider an important aspect of the user
> > |  experience -- reading documentation -- of newly proposed features.
> > |  - It would force us to give Haddock a heads-up about new features they
> > |  may want to incorporate.
> > |
> > |  If we don't think we need an ex-officio committee member, then perhaps we
> > |  should instead require future proposals to describe a plausible impact on
> > |  Haddock. I say "plausible impact" to suggest that the proposal text would
> > |  not be binding on Haddock (which would be awfully dictatorial of us), but
> > |  that it gives Haddock a starting place to consider their own design,
> > |  while forcing proposers to think about this important-but-easily-
> > |  neglected aspect of language evolution.
> > |
> > |  What do we think?
> > |
> > |  Richard
> > |  _______________________________________________
> > |  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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee