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

[Jakob Brünker]

I've made the changes, adding the shepherding step and mentioning that this
can also result in "Needs Revision".

Jakob

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 11:11 PM Simon Peyton Jones <
simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20241207/c0d1a833/attachment-0001.html>