[ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020

[Joachim Breitner]

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
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/