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

[Simon Peyton Jones]

>
> 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

you are so right.  Yes to all the above. Please just do it, and we can all
review.  (Not separate PR cycle I think.)  Thank you!

Simon

- 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.


On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 21:04, Jakob Brünker <jakob.bruenker at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/f28fc4db/attachment.html>