[ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020

[Alejandro Serrano Mena]

It seems that people like the idea, 300 out of 400 respondents gave a
"yes!", with around 100 saying it's a good idea or not caring.

If we did some meta-PR, I would prefer to simply discuss Joachim's and
Richard's proposals. I've been convinced that discussing per-extension
would result in endless pain, and I am in favour of making the Committee
"seed" the process with the list of extensions. Any other source of
information (polls, stats) should be considered, but I agree with Joachim
that some extensions may not be used that much, but pose a very low
barrier, and thus should be accepted. I don't think that would be a
problem, I trust ourselves not making crazy decisions.

What do the rest of the Committee think?

Alejandro

El lun., 19 oct. 2020 a las 17:05, Joachim Breitner (<
mail at joachim-breitner.de>) escribió:

> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 19.10.2020, 14:07 +0000 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> > * This counter-counter-proposal is meant to combine what I see are
> > the best qualities of both proposals: the structure in Alejandro's
> > (Joachim's suggests just debating about extensions over email, which
> > causes me to shudder in horror, even if the discussion is just among
> > committee members), with the committee-seeding from Joachim's.
>
> My proposal is mis-phrased: I suggest _not_ debating. I want GHC2021 to
> contain only uncontroversial extensions. If debating flares up about a
> specific extension, that’s already a clear sign that the extension
> should not make it _this round_, which settles that very discussion.
>
>
> If at any point a committee member feels like strongly arguing in favor
> of an extension that does not already have a majority with more
> emphasis than just “here are some good points you might have missed”,
> then such an extension is not uncontroversial, and would simply be
> voted out. I expect us from refraining from strongly and verbosely
> arguing for an individual extension, and thus no discussion ensues.
>
>
> If at any point a committee member feels like strongly arguing against
> an extension that does already have a majority, then I expect that at
> least three other members will take that as “clearly not
> uncontroversial”, remove it from their vote, and make any further
> discussion not needed.
>
>
>
> I think it is wrong to think the decision “Should Foo be part of
> GHC20201” needs the same level of rigor as “should Foo exist”.
>
> In the latter case, if we say no, somebody is unhappy because they
> can’t use a feature they care about. So we really need the detailed
> discussion, and refinement etc. So yay for PRs.
>
> In the former case, if we say no, it’s no big deal, people will have to
> continue saying {-# LANGUAGE Foo #-} for a few more years. This does
> not hurt anyone!
>
>
> And therefore, I strongly advise against any heavy per-extension
> discussion process.
>
>
> > We'll all edit the meta-proposal as need-be, with the expectation
> > that we friends do not clobber each other's work. Seems simpler than
> > having the conversation spread among multiple PRs.
>
> That’s a good point; we can have options in one PR and still do ranked
> voting.
>
> 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
> 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/20201019/226d310e/attachment.html>