[ghc-steering-committee] GHC2024 voting

[Adam Gundry]

Sorry for my slow response. A few observations, and my vote:

The proposal mentions ImpredicativeTypes, but it doesn't seem to appear 
on the ballot? (Personally I'm not in favour of including it, but was 
this an accidental omission?)

I feel strongly that enabling GHC2024 should be equivalent to enabling 
all its constituent extensions (which is not the case for GHC2021, e.g. 
because -XTypeOperators enables ExplicitNamespaces but -XGHC2021 does 
not). This motivates including ExplicitNamespaces and GADTs with 
MonoLocalBinds. Alternatively, if the collective opinion is that GADTs 
should not be included, I believe we should seriously consider removing 
ExistentialQuantification.

* [x] DataKinds
* [ ] DefaultSignatures
* [x] DerivingStrategies
* [x] DisambiguateRecordFields
* [x] ExplicitNamespaces
* [x] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds
* [ ] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds
* [x] LambdaCase
* [x] RoleAnnotations
* [ ] TypeData
* [ ] TypeFamilies
* [ ] BlockArguments

Cheers,

Adam


On 16/12/2023 13:16, Simon Marlow wrote:
> * [x] DataKinds
> * [x] DefaultSignatures
> * [x] DerivingStrategies
> * [x] DisambiguateRecordFields
> * [x] ExplicitNamespaces
> * [x] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds
> * [x] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds
> * [x] LambdaCase
> * [x] RoleAnnotations
> * [ ] TypeData
> * [x] TypeFamilies
> * [ ] BlockArguments
> 
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 17:54, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de 
> <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear Committee,
> 
>     there isn't much discussion, but maybe a silent consensus that we
>     should go ahead with this?
> 
>     So please cast your vote about each of the following extensions; simply
>     by replying to this email and putting an x next to those extensions you
>     think should be part of GHC2024.
> 
>     * [ ] DataKinds
>     * [ ] DefaultSignatures
>     * [ ] DerivingStrategies
>     * [ ] DisambiguateRecordFields
>     * [ ] ExplicitNamespaces
>     * [ ] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds
>     * [ ] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds
>     * [ ] LambdaCase
>     * [ ] RoleAnnotations
>     * [ ] TypeData
>     * [ ] TypeFamilies
>     * [ ] BlockArguments
> 
>     As per the process (#372) the quorum for inclusion is  _7 votes_ out of
>     the 10 current committee members. So it takes only four “no”s to block
>     an extension.
> 
>     I’m putting GADTs in two both variants on the ballot.
>     If “GADTs with MonoLocalBinds” makes it in, then its in, and only if
>     not we look at “GADTs without MonoLocalBinds”.
>     So it may make sense to vote in favor of both.
> 
>     Ballot boxes are upen until Jan 8th, but it is probably better for
>     everyone if votes are casted sooner. Maybe we can do it within a week?
> 
>     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/>


-- 
Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England