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

[Simon Peyton Jones]

great, thank you!

Simon

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 00:13, Jakob Brünker <jakob.bruenker at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20241207/2db0c274/attachment.html>