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

[Spiwack, Arnaud]

I'm rather in the “against” camp, for now. I'm fine with accepting designs
without necessarily an implementer attached to them. At least a priori. But
I don't really have data: how many unimplemented proposals do we have? What
do other communities do? (say Rust, Ocaml, who both have a proposal
process).

So maybe I can be convinced.

/Arnaud

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 8:48 PM Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev>
wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 19, 2022, at 4:44 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
>
> Simon, Richad and Chris in support. Any other opinions? Or should I
> just merge this?
>
>
> It would be Really Nice to have more opinions on this one. It's a
> substantial change to our workflow, and I would expect a move like this to
> be best with a solid majority of us actively in favor (which I am).
>
> Can the other voices join the conversation, please?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220823/cc0705ba/attachment.html>