[ghc-steering-committee] Intended meaning of "Needs revision" label

[Malte Ott]

If your handling was wrong, then I have certainly erred in the same way.

I can see where VitWWs interpretation comes from, but that interpretation has
never been formalized anywhere.

I think having labels to track of whom the next action is required no matter the
size of that action makes sense to me.

Our documentation only says this on the topic:

> Eventually, the committee rejects a proposal (label: Rejected), or passes it
> back to the author for review (label: Needs revision), or accepts it (label:
> Accepted).

It is true that this could be interpreted a bit more final than you intended in
this case, but I don’t think it excludes attaching that label for smaller changes.

Especially, nothing in the written process documentation says that the shepherd
ceases to be the sheperd when revisions are required. Also, as we recently
discussed a proposal can have a sheperd before the shepherd recommendation
phase.

Best,
Malte

On 2024-12-06 18:38, Jakob Brünker wrote:
>    Hi all,
> 
>    I've so far essentially been using the "Needs revision" label to
>    indicate that the next concrete step has to be taken by the author,
>    regardless of how big the changes I suggest are.
>    After I did this yesterday, VitWW [1]commented, essentially saying it's
>    only intended for cases where major rewrites are required.
> 
>    From what I can tell, in past proposals, if relatively minor changes
>    came up during the shepherding phase, sometimes "Needs revision" was
>    used, and sometimes not.
> 
>    Is there a guideline I should follow, or that you tend to follow here?
> 
>    Jakob
> 
> References
> 
>    1. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/621#issuecomment-2523299848

> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee