[ghc-steering-committee] Base library organisation

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Sonntag, dem 09.07.2023 um 06:53 +0200 schrieb Vladislav:
> So I agree with the general idea that it's important to get CLC
> involved, but for the sake of proposal authors and proposal
> implementors, this should be a committee-to-committee interaction,
> not a person-to-two-committees interaction

I agree, that would be desirable.

Could we invite a CLC member to join the GHC committee? Either a full
member if someone wants, or a special “observer” who represents the
(procedural) interests of the CLC? A bit like the Holy Sea has a seat
at the UN…


> and acceptance of a proposal needs to be a single atomic operation
> instead of having kind-of-accepted documents floating around in the
> ghc-proposals repo.

That’s a bit harder because acceptance means different things in the
two proposal systems:

 * The GHC proposal proposal (so far) says “This idea and design is
   good” but the implementation can still fail (too hard, technical
   issues, possibly even rejection of the GHC devs based on
   implementation isuses). 
 * The CLC committee decides (usually) on almost ready-to-merge
   proposals, with an impact assessment and possibly patches to
   libraries out there.

There is clearly an mismatch here that seems to be hard to resolve
without changing at least one of the two processes (which are like that
for good reasons). But at least we should try to make this transparent:
Get a (non-binding) positive assessment of the CLC on proposals that
touch base when accepting a GHC proposal, and communicate the need to
get final approval when the implementation is done

Cheers,
Joachim



-- 
Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-
breitner.de/