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

[Eric Seidel]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022, at 18:09, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>>  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. 

Sorry, I didn't mean that the GHC team would implement the proposal themselves. The expectation, I think, is that *someone* will implement the proposal, and that GHC will accept the patch.

> 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.

This is where I don't know if I agree. The author already invested considerable effort writing and revising the proposal itself. And we gave our seal of approval that the proposal is a worthwhile addition to GHC. I think this is where an *institution* should step in and ensure that, for the good of the whole ecosystem, accepted proposals are implemented in a timely manner.

Maybe what this looks like in practice is that proposals without committed implementers are "conditionally accepted" or something, and then the author can separately petition the HF to fund the implementation. That's effectively what you're suggesting, but if we do that there should be an established process that authors can follow, and an agreement from e.g. the HF that they would consider funding such work. 

We should set the precedent first, and then require authors to follow it.