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

[Arnaud Spiwack]

Because I've been very silent here: I've spoken with Richard, and I'll be
the person handling the document, as promised. I really wished I could have
gotten to it earlier, but I've had a very intense couple of weeks which
didn't afford me the sort of focus that this task deserves. That being
said, I have a plan, so a bunch of polls coming to you Very Soon™.

/Arnaud

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 02:56, Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230210/fc33a49b/attachment.html>