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

[Jakob Brünker]

Thank you both for your responses.

@Simon: I like explicitly stating who has to take the next action a lot. I
think the current phrasing is not quite right though -
in particular, it now says "The committee secretary appoints a committee
member as shepherd, which moves the proposal to the *Pending committtee
review* state.", but I would say appointing a shepherd moves the proposal
into the *Pending shepherd recommendation* state.

If you want, I can just make the changes I think should be made (I haven't
done so yet in case I'm misunderstanding something), but essentially
- I would shuffle a couple of the labels around to fix the above
- I would insert a step between 4 and 5 that consists of the shepherd
giving feedback and deciding on their recommendation, before the actual
committee review begins.

Jakob

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:31 PM Simon Peyton Jones <
simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jakob is right.
>
> I have updated
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/README.rst to
> be much more explicit about who is responsible for the next action.
>
> Does that help?   Further drafting changes welcome
>
> Simon
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 18:39, Malte Ott <malte.ott at maralorn.de> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20241206/184450c5/attachment-0001.html>