[ghc-steering-committee] Call for votes: Shall we have GHC2023

[Richard Eisenberg]

Instead of focusing narrowly on GHC2023, I would much rather harness the activity that arose over https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_-hPh8BRhKNlzM0dC1IRSmjCqPym9mXx9NjC7jUlpRQ/edit?usp=sharing and get that discussion in a state where we can actually turn it into something resembling a policy. I think that's why I didn't vote on the GHC2023 question. I feel unable to have an opinion about GHC2023 until we sort out the larger question.

I seem to recall some email suggesting Arnaud would pilot the discussion to a conclusion. That would be great. But if I'm either dreaming that or Arnaud is actually unavailable, I can volunteer to do this. This would take the place of active work within GHC for me for a few weeks, but I actually think that's OK and a good use of my time.

Richard

> On Feb 5, 2023, at 12:33 PM, Chris Dornan <chris at chrisdornan.com> wrote:
> 
> Although I was in favour of us proceeding I agree that in the face of such ambivalence it is probably best to assume that we won't  'release' GHC2023.
> 
> I am hedging a bit -- those of us in favour might muster an argument later in the year and explain exactly what we want GHC2023 for, and turn the doubters into believers, but the onus will be on us to do that, and until then we can focus on other matters.
> 
>> On 5 Feb 2023, at 16:22, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Am Sonntag, dem 22.01.2023 um 13:40 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
>>> Instead, please cast your vote until Apri 5 (but preferrably earlier)
>>> on the question:
>>> 
>>>  Should we proceed towards GHC2023?
>> 
>> So far we have 
>> 
>> * Chris, Adam and me in favor
>> * Vlad, Arnaud and Simon PJ against
>> 
>> and silence from the rest. And I just noticed that I wrote “April 5”
>> when I meant “February 5” (for the usual 2 week period). Ups, sorry.
>> 
>> So in theory maybe the others were planning to respond later?
>> 
>> Anyways, given that there is neither consensus (so it’s not clear what
>> to do), nor much discussion (so it’s not clear that many care), in the
>> interest of getting things done, I’ll just declare this as rejected –
>> it’s not a bike-shedding-like issue where close votes are a good way to
>> make a call, but it’s rather something that, if it happens, should have
>> broad support in the committee anyways.
>> 
>> (If this was premature and overreachy and suddenly a strong majority in
>> favor emerges we can still change our collective mind.)
>> 
>> 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