[ghc-steering-committee] GHC 20xx process

[Iavor Diatchki]

Hello,

I like the simple process, however I think I'd prefer a bit more discussion
in phase 2,when we know the current tallies, and also I think we should
give ourselves the option to decide *not* to have GHC2020---it seems odd
that this is a proposal that is phrased as "we are definitely going to end
up with GHC 2020, we just don't know what's in it :-)

-Iavor


On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:41 AM Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
wrote:

> Joachim puts his opinion quite eloquently and convincingly :-)
>
> I was initially in favour of one conversation space by proposed extension,
> but, at least for the first round this is likely to be overwhelming. At
> least, I haven't found or seen, yet, a way to make this manageable. So let
> me vote with the majority opinion here.
>
> Let's see how it goes really, if it doesn't work out how we expected this
> time around, we can change the process for the next iteration.
>
> /Arnaud
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:11 PM Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Alejandro and Joachim for pushing this forward!
>>
>> I also suggested a heavier process along the lines of (2) at some point,
>> but after reading the proposal and Joachim's argument here, I feel
>> comfortable with (1) as well.
>>
>> Also, I think @AntC2 made a good point about -fglasgow-exts on the PR
>> [1]. For the initial round it would be useful to list the extensions
>> enabled by -fglasgow-exts as a reference point.
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/372#issuecomment-716066900
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020, at 06:18, Simon Peyton Jones via
>> ghc-steering-committee wrote:
>> > |  Is anyone not in favor of this proposal, or has questions, or shall
>> we
>> > |  declare consensus and merge it?
>> >
>> > In my message of 4 Nov, I asked for feedback within "a week or two".
>> > Let's set a deadline of the end of this week.
>> >
>> > All: please respond before then, if you want to.
>> >
>> > I don't think this is terribly controversial, so I'll take silence as
>> assent.
>> >
>> > All this assuming we adopt Alternative 1.
>> >
>> > Simon
>> >
>> > |  -----Original Message-----
>> > |  From: ghc-steering-committee <
>> ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org> On
>> > |  Behalf Of Joachim Breitner
>> > |  Sent: 09 November 2020 16:28
>> > |  To: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> > |  Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC 20xx process
>> > |
>> > |  Hi,
>> > |
>> > |  Am Freitag, den 06.11.2020, 19:55 +0000 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
>> > |  > This is an effective argument; you've changed my mind.
>> > |  >
>> > |  > I'm now in favor of Joachim's simpler process.
>> > |
>> > |  thanks, also for making me get more clarity on this as well.
>> > |
>> > |  Is anyone still preferring Alternative 2, or should we take it off
>> the
>> > |  table?
>> > |
>> > |  Is anyone not in favor of this proposal, or has questions, or shall
>> we
>> > |  declare consensus and merge it?
>> > |
>> > |
>> > |  It seems that now is a good time to then actually do the first
>> iteration of
>> > |  the process – the State of Haskell survey data, once out, will be
>> fresh, and
>> > |  we'd be well in time for inclusion in the Spring release of GHC,
>> likely 9.1
>> > |  (unless the 9.0 delay shifts things around… oh well, let’s just make
>> sure we
>> > |  have GHC2021 defined before or near the start of 2021, not late in
>> that year
>> > |  :-))
>> > |
>> > |  Cheers,
>> > |  Joachim
>> > |
>> > |  --
>> > |  Joachim Breitner
>> > |    mail at joachim-breitner.de
>> > |
>> > |
>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim
>> > |  -
>> > |  breitner.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com
>> %7C125f812494db4225
>> > |
>> 0f4808d884cc8403%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C63740536191896
>> > |
>> 4507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
>> > |
>> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2BfuHY7eCNyF5QlP7BfXDrNjxgWhoj%2FGI92S
>> > |  esCy1gLA%3D&reserved=0
>> > |
>> > |
>> > |  _______________________________________________
>> > |  ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> > |  ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> > |
>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haske
>> > |  ll.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-
>> > |  committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com
>> %7C125f812494db42250f480
>> > |
>> 8d884cc8403%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637405361918974502%
>> > |
>> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
>> > |
>> LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TyxdMqz%2FXFY9WYgZKdUHkFSQEvqRMJdoVEajh39JNs
>> > |  A%3D&reserved=0
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20201113/e3e0f98a/attachment.html>