[ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020
Richard Eisenberg
rae at richarde.dev
Fri Oct 2 15:33:49 UTC 2020
A few scattered thoughts:
* I don't see a particular need to debate on this list separately from a debate more in public. This list is public, anyway! And having the debate organized from as early as possible seems better.
* I feel strongly that we should find a venue where we can discuss individual extensions on separately-marshalled threads, not in one monolithic clump. One idea (I think?) that was floated was to start a new repo (in the ghc-proposals org), where we can make a ticket for any contested extension. Kialo is another idea (assuming it supports separate threads for separate ideas); I have no experience. In the end, I don't care much about where this happens, as long as separate threads are indeed separable.
* Debating the criteria seems like a worthy place to start. That *could* be done over email, but I think a proposal is better.
Maybe this suggests the following structure:
* A ghc-proposal that sets out the criteria for inclusion -- but does not opine on any extensions (except perhaps as illustrations of a criterion). This can get debated and accepted in the usual fashion, except that it might form a new document in the top level of our repo, not just another proposal. This initial proposal can also set out the way to stage the rest of the debate.
* Upon acceptance, we proceed with the approach outlined in the first step, such as the extra repo or the Kialo space.
* Profit.
Richard
> On Oct 1, 2020, at 3:34 PM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My idea was to turn the original wiki page https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/wiki/GHC2020 <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/wiki/GHC2020> into an actual proposal, so we can open it to discussion. Except for a few extensions, I copied the original acceptance list, since people seemed to mostly agree with them.
>
> In any case, the aim was to agree on some set of extensions that we could propose as a Committee, before opening to further consultation, especially in order to agree on a set of criteria. It could well be that we should refrain from adding some of them; it seems that you think that roles for example are not there yet, so we should remove any extension which uses them implicitly.
>
> I am happy to go back to the original thread you sent, and tell which are those extensions which I consider fine. But as you said, that would make the discussion terribly inefficient. Any thoughts on the approach to follow? Otherwise I feel we'll be forever in a sort of deadlock. I am also happy with taking Iavor's original list, turning it into a proposal, and let the community speak. But then we need a good story about why some common extensions, like MultiParamTypeClasses, are not included.
>
> Regards,
> Alejandro
>
> El jue., 1 oct. 2020 a las 18:10, Iavor Diatchki (<iavor.diatchki at gmail.com <mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>>) escribió:
> I quite strongly disagree with a bunch of the classifications on Alejandro's link but I have no idea *why* he thinks they match the criteria, or what that even means. Rather than having an unstructured discussion about "I don't agree with this or that", I'd encourage us to avoid the "big bang" approach, of having a page with all extensions, and do something more focused. For example, in the extensions I sent in the original e-mail of this thread are grouped more or less "by topic", and I think we should do something similar in the discussion.
>
> For the sake of concreteness, why don't we start by discussing extensions related to Haskell's deriving mechanism? In Alejandro's current link there are a whole lot of these listed as "matching all criteria", but not all of them are compatible with each other, so they should not be all part of GHC 2020. On this topic, the extensions I think should be part of GHC2020 would be:
> 1. EmptyDataDeriving
> 2. StandaloneDeriving
> 3. DeriveGeneric
> 4. DeriveLift
>
> I don't think any of these are likely to affect existing code bases, and I don't think listing them as an explicit extension gives you any information that you couldn't easily obtain by just looking at the code.
> I don't use (1) a lot but I think it makes the language more consistent. (2) I use this sometimes, and having an extension to enable it doesn't really add any extra information, and (3) and (4) are for Generics and Template Haskell, both of which are fairly common and not likely to go away.
>
> Other extensions that I use quite often are `GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving`, `DeriveTraversible`. I don't think we should add `GenerelizedNewtypeDeriving` because it brings in the whole "role" annotation machinery. I know why we need it at the moment, but it doesn't seem particularly elegant. I also tend to use it in extremely restricted ways, mostly to derive `Monad` instances. `DeriveTraversible` seems nice and I do use it, but I think it potentially interferes with the other deriving techniques (e.g. GND).
>
> -Iavor
> PS: I'd be up for trying out something like Kialo if we'd prefer to use a tool rather than having the discussion over e-mail
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:32 AM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com <mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>> wrote:
> Thanks. Rather than explaining to me, you could update the proposal? (In due course.)
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com <mailto:trupill at gmail.com>>
> Sent: 01 October 2020 09:18
> To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com <mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>>
> Cc: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com <mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>>; Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev <mailto:rae at richarde.dev>>; ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020
>
>
>
> My idea is to make this a bit better before sending the PR to the ghc-proposals repo (as Iavor suggested), but any preliminary feedback is welcome.
>
>
>
> Answering your questions (maybe Richard can also explain a bit, I'm giving here my interpretation):
>
> - By "complementing" we mean a (mostly subjective) idea that it goes with the spirit of Haskell. For example, MultiParamTypeClasses extends what's already there, and works well with the rest of features. If we suddenly decided you can use Lisp-like syntax, that would not complement it's current design.
>
> - We want to keep all potentially unsafe features under flags. IncoherentInstances should not be enabled by default because of its behavior.
>
> - I prefer to have a strict wording and then add exceptions. So I would say conservativeness should be described as "no program ceases to be accepted".
>
> - "Failure mode" is again not concrete, but the idea is that everything which would make the developer experience worse by being enabled should not be part of GHC2020.
>
>
>
> El jue., 1 oct. 2020 a las 10:11, Simon Peyton Jones (<simonpj at microsoft.com <mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>>) escribió:
>
> Thanks Alejandro. How do you want feedback? The “discussed at this PR” link is broken.
>
>
>
> I think the criteria could be tightened up quite a bit.
>
>
>
> I don’t know what “The extensions complement the design of standard Haskell” means. What would be an example of something that doesn’t complement it?
>
>
> I don’t know what “The extension is not to gate-keep an advanced or potentially-unsafe feature” means.
>
>
> Item (1), conservative extension, is a bit ambiguous. Is says “Mostly” but then “all programs”. Which is your intent?
>
>
> What is a “new failure mode”? Do you mean existing programs that fail when the extension is on? Or new programs that are trying to use the new extension but get it wrong? For the latter it’s hard to see how they’d be rare.
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com <mailto:trupill at gmail.com>>
> Sent: 30 September 2020 21:06
> To: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com <mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com <mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>>; Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev <mailto:rae at richarde.dev>>; ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've started working on a proposal for GHC2020. You can see the current status here: https://github.com/serras/ghc-proposals/blob/ghc-2020/proposals/0000-ghc-2020.md <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fserras%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fghc-2020%2Fproposals%2F0000-ghc-2020.md&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977231780&sdata=1rK336YRHSWotXYZAqkH4Iwwi7efswXe5jTplbPu1Bs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> I noticed the list by Richard was not exhaustive. Those extensions are headed by "In discussion". Preferably we should make up our minds before presenting the proposal. I would say there are three big groups of proposals. Any feedback is welcome on that part.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandrp
>
>
>
> El mar., 29 sept. 2020 a las 18:38, Iavor Diatchki (<iavor.diatchki at gmail.com <mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>>) escribió:
>
> Thanks Alejandro. My preference would be that you share whatever you come up with the list so we can discuss it, before making a proposal that would represent the committee.
>
> -Iavor
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:07 AM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>> wrote:
>
> OK by me. Thank you
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>> On Behalf Of Alejandro Serrano Mena
> Sent: 29 September 2020 15:51
> To: Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev <mailto:rae at richarde.dev>>
> Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020
>
>
>
> I am still happy to drive this! I was not sure about whether we agreed as a Committee on pushing this.
>
>
>
> To make this more actionable, my goal is, during next Sunday, to create a new proposal with the criteria (based on Richard + Simon's list), and a preliminary assessment of which of the current extensions satisfy these criteria, and for those we might be willing to grant exceptions.
>
>
>
> Please raise your voice if you think we should proceed otherwise (or if you think we should not proceed at all!).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
> El mar., 29 sept. 2020 a las 16:29, Richard Eisenberg (<rae at richarde.dev <mailto:rae at richarde.dev>>) escribió:
>
> What's the status of this push? I was delighted to see that Alejandro volunteered to be a motive force on this idea, and have thus refrained (as I am pushing on other ideas, too). But I also don't want this to die. :)
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:39 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com <mailto:trupill at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with using the criteria that Richard posted + the addition by Simon. Just in case somebody hadn't looked at the wiki, the criteria would be:
>
> The extension is (mostly) conservative: All programs that were accepted without the extension remain accepted, and with the same meaning.
> New failure modes that become possible with the extension are rare and/or easy to diagnose. (These failure modes include new error messages, wrong inferred types, and runtime errors, for example.)
> The extensions complement the design of standard Haskell. (This one seems the most subjective.)
> The extension has been -- and can reasonably be predicted to remain -- stable.
> The extension is not to gate-keep an advanced or potentially-unsafe feature.
> The extension is widely-used.
> For example, should we add to (6) "in current developments"? What about things like "EmptyDataDecls", which are just straightforward generalizations of what Haskell 2010 already allows, although in practice the only data type you would ever need to be empty is "Void"?
>
>
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
> El jue., 17 sept. 2020 a las 16:42, Simon Marlow (<marlowsd at gmail.com <mailto:marlowsd at gmail.com>>) escribió:
>
> I think there should be some requirement that an extension be widely-used (for some suitable definition of that), before we ratify it in GHC2020. Some of the extensions that made it past the first round of filtering are not widely-used, and would be therefore probably be controversial additions to a language standard - e.g. ViewPatterns, ParallelListComp, RecursiveDo to name a few that I noticed straight off. I think it's a good idea to be conservative here.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 10:29, Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>> wrote:
>
> There seems to be some question about who should drive this debate. But there is something we all seem to agree on: it is our role, as the steering committee, to announce the criteria by which we intend to judge the reasonableness of each potential candidate extension.
>
>
>
> So, let me suggest that we start discussing that, and move back to how this discussion ought to be driven when we are a bit clearer on the criteria.
>
>
>
> Richard wrote a bunch of criteria in the wiki page upthread [1]. I think that they are worthy of discussion. So let me ask the question: do we agree with all these criteria? do we want to add more?
>
>
>
> [1]: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/wiki/GHC2020 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fwiki%2FGHC2020&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977231780&sdata=lpOFIx5mBcaUbKIDIhs%2BnAmYd72%2FctVTwij1WJYTVF8%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:17 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com <mailto:trupill at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I would rather make the process Committee-driven, because otherwise it may derail into too many micro-discussions. I think it's better to start a conversation saying "this is our proposal, here are our criteria, here are the exceptions we want to make", and then discuss from there.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
>
>
> El mar., 8 sept. 2020 a las 14:01, Eric Seidel (<eric at seidel.io <mailto:eric at seidel.io>>) escribió:
>
> I think we may want to have the Committee initiate and drive the process. I think a GHC20XX proposal will turn into a bunch of micro proposals and discussions about individual (groups of) extensions, and it will be hard to track all of the threads of discussion in a single GitHub thread. We’ve dealt with long and contentious discussions before, but they were much more focused than GHC20XX will be, by design.
>
>
>
> I suggested earlier that an alternative strategy could be to open a new repo where the community can collaborate on GHC20XX via a familiar PR-based process, with each proposed group of extensions getting its own PR and discussion. There are a few open questions here though. When/how do we decide that it’s time for a new standard? How do we decide when the full proposal is ready for review? Do we need to review and sign off on each group of extensions separately or only the final product?
>
>
>
> This process would be a lot more work for us, so I’m happy to try the usual process first, and I’ll be happy to be proved wrong. But we should be prepared to step in and add some more structure if needed.
>
>
>
> Regardless, the first step should be to update our docs to express interest in GHC20XX proposals, establish criteria for including language extensions, and outline a process for submitting them.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2020, at 06:37, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com <mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Personally I don’t think we should make the Steering Committee responsible for initiating or driving this. We should
>
> · establish the criteria (including some idea of how frequently we’d be open to creating a new GHCxx version),
>
> · express open-ness to a proposal, and then
>
> · review proposals when/if they materialise.
>
>
>
> It’d be fine for Alejandro, as an individual, to be a proposer. But that’s different from making the committee responsible.
>
>
>
> What do others think?
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com <mailto:trupill at gmail.com>>
> Sent: 08 September 2020 09:13
> To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com <mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>>
> Cc: Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev <mailto:rae at richarde.dev>>; Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io <mailto:eric at seidel.io>>; ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would really like to move this forward, and I would be happy to put some work on it.
>
>
>
> What do you think of the following plan?
>
> - Create a ghc-proposal based on the (awesome) wiki page by Richard. I think the criteria in the wiki are quite nice. Explain that one of the goals is to encompass as many stable extensions as possible.
>
> - Reformat the list to make 3 tables: one for extensions which satisfy all 5 criteria, one for extensions we want to include even if they don't, and one for those which should be rejected in the light of those criteria.
>
>
>
> If the process works well, we could think about instaurating a yearly/bi-yearly/n-yearly process to create new -XGHC20XX versions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
> El lun., 7 sept. 2020 a las 17:32, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee (<ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>>) escribió:
>
> Just back from holiday. Some thoughts
>
> * I don’t think this mailing list is the best place for the
> discussion. Basically, it's a GHC Proposal, so someone (possibly
> a committee member, possibly not) should write a proposal,
> and we should put it through the process.
>
> * We should advertise the criteria, as Richard has done on the
> wiki page.
>
> * Any such proposal should be informed by data. Notably, extension usage
> in Hackage, or perhaps Stackage (since it's a bit more curated).
>
> * A proposer might also want to run a public poll, as an additional
> source of data
>
> * When it comes to the committee, we can (I guess) vote on individual
> extensions, rather than just accept/reject the whole thing.
>
> I am intrigued by the idea of using Kialo to coordinate discussion.
> Maybe it'd work better than GitHub? Are there other alternatives?
> But that's orthogonal to the GHC 2020 idea; let's not conflate them.
>
> Simon
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-
> | bounces at haskell.org <mailto:bounces at haskell.org>> On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
> | Sent: 02 September 2020 14:57
> | To: Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io <mailto:eric at seidel.io>>
> | Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020
> |
> | It seems clear that my wiki idea isn't winning the day -- I never
> | really liked it either. I'd be fine with either Eric's or Joachim's
> | approaches. Maybe start with Joachim's approach and then use Eric's
> | when Joachim's runs out of steam? A big minus, though, to Joachim's
> | approach is that it seems hard to get good community involvement.
> |
> | Richard
> |
> | > On Sep 2, 2020, at 8:11 AM, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io <mailto:eric at seidel.io>> wrote:
> | >
> | > Opening a regular discussion about whether and how we want to work on
> | GHC 2020 sounds fine, that will also give the community a place to
> | weigh in. I do think the eventual contents should be informed by the
> | community though, it shouldn’t just be us working alone.
> | >
> | > Sent from my iPhone
> | >
> | >> On Sep 2, 2020, at 03:16, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-
> | breitner.de <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbreitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977241774&sdata=71oNkM1l%2BSDf%2BAbWVDFSMGQrC3tu4ty%2FQ2M47lOnmu4%3D&reserved=0>> wrote:
> | >>
> | >> Hi,
> | >>
> | >> sounds plausible. It would also allow us to use tags to easily
> | indicate
> | >> the status (e.g. clearly-not, definitely-yes, kinda-contested…), and
> | >> then filter by issue to get the current list…
> | >>
> | >> But before we go there, shouldn’t we maybe have a discussion first
> | on
> | >>
> | >> * do we even want that?
> | >> * what are the abstract criteria (or guidelines)?
> | >> * what is the process?
> | >>
> | >> I believe that discussion could be done like any other proposal.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> As for the process; when I brought up the idea, I was worried about
> | us
> | >> spending huge resources discussion individual extensions to death,
> | and
> | >> proposed, in the interest of efficiency and getting things done:
> | >>
> | >>> The process could be: Every member can nominate any number of
> | >>> extensions, to include, maybe a small rationale and then we do one
> | >>> round of independent approval voting, requiring a supermajority to
> | >>> really only pick uncontested extensions.
> | >>
> | >> So instead of long debates, we start with GHC2020 being just those
> | >> extensions that a supermajority on the committee considers to be ok.
> | >>
> | >> This is much more lightweight process that we could get done in a
> | week
> | >> or two (maybe using a doodle-like voting page). Maybe we would leave
> | >> out one or two extension that initially people are reserved about,
> | but
> | >> could be swayed after lengthy discussions. But is that worth the
> | >> lengthy discussion?
> | >>
> | >> cheers,
> | >> Joachim
> | >>
> | >> --
> | >> Joachim Breitner
> | >> mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> | >>
> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jo <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jo>
> | achim-
> | breitner.de <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbreitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977241774&sdata=71oNkM1l%2BSDf%2BAbWVDFSMGQrC3tu4ty%2FQ2M47lOnmu4%3D&reserved=0>%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40microsoft.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977251776&sdata=ddj4e3mS%2F%2FAhpGbMV5NkneCJW1aXe1YKfM4hg0%2FwGNg%3D&reserved=0>%7Cfa6e3a6bcdf
> | 04ed5611208d84f480f21%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6373
> | 46518199468575&sdata=ABgJCFijwzYszRybc0kReMPdR7oSLzC1nV1xJYSlxQ0%3D
> | &reserved=0
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> _______________________________________________
> | >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> | >> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> | >>
> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail>.
> | haskell.org <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhaskell.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977251776&sdata=KQfPgn0781%2Fi5JrFyEBp87Tcc3G%2FGiysbqlTM42Xgrw%3D&reserved=0>%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-
> | committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40microsoft.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977261761&sdata=X4VmXP6B65Tp%2Byv77g47%2FJiSx%2FdrScj5n5xMyzJKiik%3D&reserved=0>%7Cfa6e3a6bcdf04ed5
> | 611208d84f480f21%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637346518
> | 199468575&sdata=H1hFiX8qnuf%2FlYeNXfEE5j5Aik3dlVvsujoHOt%2FHTnw%3D&
> | amp;reserved=0
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> | > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> | >
> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail>.
> | haskell.org <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhaskell.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977261761&sdata=BdY%2Fv6at9nrPOSB4RqbhsDmjKopgJqGlYBEY6XcQhOM%3D&reserved=0>%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-
> | committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40microsoft.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977271759&sdata=r3dK4INyOAgjOC3GmkBGVkTcko6auZjST5815b8Gq9c%3D&reserved=0>%7Cfa6e3a6bcdf04ed5
> | 611208d84f480f21%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637346518
> | 199468575&sdata=H1hFiX8qnuf%2FlYeNXfEE5j5Aik3dlVvsujoHOt%2FHTnw%3D&
> | amp;reserved=0
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> | ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail>.
> | haskell.org <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhaskell.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977271759&sdata=4YyoqgXgYhjSanhyuMXMjEQsTZm3ux00U6O3mFv274g%3D&reserved=0>%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-
> | committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40microsoft.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977281758&sdata=rwo%2BaTMPD6sIQAYIcyWg1DU5Ut71bgKxYIdp3mP9Iuo%3D&reserved=0>%7Cfa6e3a6bcdf04ed5
> | 611208d84f480f21%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637346518
> | 199468575&sdata=H1hFiX8qnuf%2FlYeNXfEE5j5Aik3dlVvsujoHOt%2FHTnw%3D&
> | amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977281758&sdata=hFTP2bNd5ZWcDQ0vH98O3hhwYOp%2BIV0iLwHMTBJZEHI%3D&reserved=0>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977291746&sdata=EGhYP0xZU5J21J4Yw3G7kdxbEhIqCraDAK8JOCnCIOw%3D&reserved=0>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977291746&sdata=EGhYP0xZU5J21J4Yw3G7kdxbEhIqCraDAK8JOCnCIOw%3D&reserved=0>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977301742&sdata=BDMtmTuVxULHpG1ud5cNYDbaOKsami7UeJito%2FRgNZs%3D&reserved=0>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977301742&sdata=BDMtmTuVxULHpG1ud5cNYDbaOKsami7UeJito%2FRgNZs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc51c2a01fa8248b2f7f108d865e28c00%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371370977311737&sdata=p895UWSa99PCifyQgpA9WEZKtdgVz4LbPW9y3TCE5%2Bc%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20201002/60d6099b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ghc-steering-committee
mailing list