[ghc-steering-committee] Status

Fri Mar 5 23:13:11 UTC 2021

This is about #281 visible dependent quantification.

Our role is to accept, reject, or push back to the author for revision.  We should do so in a timely way.

If I were the shepherd I'd be asking the author "Do you want to revise the proposal at all in the light of all the discussion, or do you want the committee to decide yay/nay based on the proposal as it is now?"

He might want to revise/discuss a bit.  But if he says "please decide on it as-is" then I think you should make a recommendation: accept or reject.  (I don't think the discussion has led to any specific revisions that we want to see.)

I sense you would recommend reject.   That's totally fine. Then the rest of us have to make up our minds.  We might end up with a more nuanced position like "we are not ready to accept this now, so if you want a decision now, it'd be no; but feel free to ask the same question again in six months time".

If you don't feel able to be the shepherd, that's fine too: tell Joachim and he'll finger someone else!

But, by hook or by crook, I do think we should do something, not just sit on it.  Tom's nudge is helpful.

Simon

From: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
Sent: 05 March 2021 19:42
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
Cc: Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>; ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status

I am being nudged to do something with this proposal,  but I am not sure what...   Is the rest of the committee OK with moving it back "revisions required", and if so what revisions would we like?

I would be quite happy if someone else wanted to shephard this.  As I mentioned before, I don't have much interest in DH, so I have not followed the really long discussion related to that, and if and how it might relate to #281.

My recommendation for the moment would be:
   * This seems like a useful feature independent of DH, so it would be nice to come up with a concise notation to use the feature on its own, without worrying about DH.

Please let me know what you think, as I am not sure what is the committee's stance on the proposal.

-Iavor

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:54 PM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com<mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>> wrote:
There has been a broad further discussion.
What we advertise is that, rather that leave a proposal "under committee review", we will push it back to the author with an invitation to resubmit when the discussion has died down and they feel ready to submit a proposal, revised in the light of the discussion.  That's different to reject... it means that there is an ongoing debate so it's not a good time for the committee to make a decision.

Simon

From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org<mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>> On Behalf Of Iavor Diatchki
Sent: 18 February 2021 16:47
To: Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de<mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>>
Cc: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org<mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>>
Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status

On #381 I think the idea of visible quantification makes sense every now and then, but I don't like the concrete details of the proposal: the magic lifting of terms to types seems quite complicated, and using `type` as an explicit herald doesn't look nice.  So I don't think it's the right design, and therefore I suggest we reject the proposal.

I am sure that others would disagree as apparently this is an essential part of dependent Haskell.   I have not followed the large discussion that Richard created, as I am not particularly interested in the design being proposed, so perhaps someone else should champion this.

Aslo, I am not sure if I am actually on the committee, as I thought my term had expired?  That might be more reason for someone else to pick it up.

-Iavor

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:32 AM Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de<mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>> wrote:
Dear Committee,

another status update, because why not.

A small reminder: These mails have two sections, one that's a delta
since last status, but below is a summary of all proposals we have to
act on. Please at least scroll through that on each status mail to see
if you are listed, maybe you forgot something (or I made a mistake).

So here's the delta since last month.

 * GHC2021 defined! Yay!

 * Bylaws merged! Yay

 * Simon², Iavor, Richard and me had thus their terms expired.

   The Simons, as key members, wanted to continue and were
   voted back in.

   The others are now "expiring", until the next nomination round
   concludes. Alejandro is going to run that process.

 * we were asked to review these proposals:
   #390: Fine-grained pragmas, Shepherd: Vitaly

 * we have a recommendation from the shepherd about:
   #368: Warn on prefix/suffix operators (accept)

 * we have sent the following proposals back to revision
   - none -

 * we decided about the following proposals
   #313: Delimited continuation primops (accept)
   #387: The Char kind (accept)
   #368: Warn on prefix/suffix operators (accept)

We currently have to act on the following 5 proposals, down by 2.

## Waiting for committee decision

#381: Visible 'forall' in types of terms, Shepherd: Iavor
      Recommendation was to reject, but discussion went into the more
      abstract "whither dependent Haskell". But what does this mean
      for this proposal?
      Iavor, can you pick this up again?

#369: Add sumToTag# primop, Shepherd: Eric
      Essentially accepted, waiting for feedback from the author on
      final tweaks. Eric, care to nudge the author, or just do it?

#302: \of, Shepherd: Cale
      No new discussion yet. It seems there was some confusion, which
      was cleared up by Tom, and Cale said he'll pick it up now again.

## Waiting for Shepherd action

#367: Clarify primops using unboxed sums, Shepherd: Simon Marlow
      Simon said he'd reject it on the Github PR. Still waiting
      for the discussion to start on the mailing list.

#390: Fine-grained pragmas, Shepherd: Vitaly
      Still kinda new, but a recommendation would be good soon.

Cheers,
Joachim
--
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de<mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0f8040e69348485e5e2808d8e00ed1af%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637505701561371493%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=hAny2jNi%2BPKhgMYqiwt4HyNDkvOSFSHKYfYKmrJ3qOk%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=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0f8040e69348485e5e2808d8e00ed1af%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637505701561381491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=U6m9laT7pV9QEuzCyFXY2oZT4RFt2yFhDWuJE7YgIMM%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20210305/50fad407/attachment-0001.html>