[ghc-steering-committee] Please review #517: Require implementors before proposal submission, Shepherd: Simon PJ

[Richard Eisenberg]

I support this proposal. Having many accepted but unimplemented proposals is not a good look. If need be, we can create a ready-for-submission-but-lacking-implementor label so that potential contributors can find ideas, but I favor waiting for a demand before creating that structure.

Simon's idea of un-accepting proposals is interesting, but should probably not get tucked into this idea.

Richard

> On Aug 4, 2022, at 7:02 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear committee,
> 
> See https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517 <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517> 
> 
> Joachim suggests that a prerequisite for submitting a proposal to the committee is that someone is offering to implement it.
> This would avoid us spending precious cycles debating a proposal that no one is going to implement.
> An offer of implementation cannot be binding, so it is something of a soft constraint.  (An author could cynically volunteer themselves, without having any intention of carrying through, but we expect better of the Haskell community.)
> We should stress that nothing stops someone creating a proposal, making a PR, and debating it with the community, all without an implementor.  Only when it is submitted to the committee for review and approval is an implementor required.
> Joachim suggests that this replaces the (never used) "Endorsements" section.
> I wonder if a proposal that is accepted but not implemented (for whatever reason) should be un-accepted after, say, a year.  That would provide some incentive to get on with it; and the language context might be different by then.
> 
> I suggest that we debate the principle first.  I have a few word-smithing suggestions, but principles first!
> 
> On balance I recommend acceptance, with the above nuances clarified.
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 07:50, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>> wrote:
> Dear Committee,
> 
> I have submitted a meta-proposal to require implementors to be named
> before proposal submission, to focus on those proposals that are likely
> to be actually implemented.
> 
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517 <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/517>
> 
> Because this is a process-related proposal, I’d like to ask Simon to shepherd it.
> 
> Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in 
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process>
> 
> Thanks,
> Joachim
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ <http://www.joachim-breitner.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220805/0c018ea7/attachment.html>