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

[Simon Peyton Jones]

>
> Consider it from this perspective, when we accept a proposal we are
> *committing* GHC to accept a patch implementing it (assuming it passes code
> review etc). I think there’s also a general expectation that GHC *will*
> implement all accepted proposals in a timely manner.
>

I don't think so!   We have always said that accepting a proposal places
*no* obligation on the GHC team to implement it.

I think the point of this proposal is to make it a bit clearer that it is
the author's responsibility to corral resources (from volunteers, from the
HF, from a company) to implement their proposal.

That said, I think it should be fine for an author to create a PR and
initiate discussion on a proposal way before they have an implementor.
It's just that when they want to submit to the committee (which *does* have
an obligation to review and decide, a process that has costs), at that
point they should line up an plausible implementor so that we don't spend
time reviewing proposals that are unlikely to get implemented.  But a
proposal could get to an advanced stage without that final step.

Simon

Simon

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 12:58, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:

> It is similar, but I think my framing puts the pebble in the right shoe.
>
> Consider it from this perspective, when we accept a proposal we are
> *committing* GHC to accept a patch implementing it (assuming it passes code
> review etc). I think there’s also a general expectation that GHC *will*
> implement all accepted proposals in a timely manner. That’s why we’re
> having the present discussion.
>
> The question is whose responsibility is it to ensure implementation? In
> principle it should be GHC’s responsibility, but GHC is largely a
> volunteer-driven project and it’s not fair to expect a bunch of unpaid
> labor from the GHC devs.
>
> But the Haskell community at large has an interest in a fully-featured
> GHC. And the Haskell Foundation represents these interests and has funding
> to realize them. So what I’m suggesting is that we could partner with the
> Foundation to establish a bounty or grant program to implement proposals
> that do not already have a committed implementer.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 24, 2022, at 06:42, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Am Dienstag, dem 23.08.2022 um 14:01 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel:
> >> Perhaps rather than requiring an implementor to volunteer, we should
> >> lean more on groups like the Haskell Foundation to *fund the
> >> implementation of proposals*?
> >
> > isn’t that the same thing? If the Haskell Foundation (or someone else)
> > says “we’ll fund all accepted proposal”, then my proposed requirement
> > would be vacuously satisfied.
> >
> > Personally, though, I prefer if this committee does not also have to
> > worry about resource allocation for the HF…
> >
> > Nor do I think that the HF should fund “random good ideas” – there will
> > always be more good ideas than resources to implement them.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joachim
> >
> > --
> > Joachim Breitner
> >  mail at joachim-breitner.de
> >  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > 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/20220824/7e0f78f1/attachment.html>