[ghc-steering-committee] GHC 2020

[Simon Peyton Jones]

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> On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
|  Sent: 02 September 2020 14:57
|  To: Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io>
|  Cc: 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> 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> 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
|  >>
|  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jo
|  achim-
|  breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cfa6e3a6bcdf
|  04ed5611208d84f480f21%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6373
|  46518199468575&sdata=ABgJCFijwzYszRybc0kReMPdR7oSLzC1nV1xJYSlxQ0%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.
|  haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-
|  committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%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
|  >
|  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%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
|  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%7Cfa6e3a6bcdf04ed5
|  611208d84f480f21%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637346518
|  199468575&sdata=H1hFiX8qnuf%2FlYeNXfEE5j5Aik3dlVvsujoHOt%2FHTnw%3D&
|  amp;reserved=0