Rethinking GHC's approach to managing proposals

[Ben Gamari]

Apostolos Syropoulos via Glasgow-haskell-users
<glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org> writes:

>  >Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion[1,2] around the
>>mechanisms by which proposed changes to GHC are evaluated. While we have
>>something of a formal proposal protocol [3], it is not clearly
>>documented, inconsistently applied, and may be failing to serve a
>>significant fraction of GHC's potential contributor pool.
>  
> I think the best thing to do is to fork the source code and modify it according
> to one's own needs. Having some sort of committees to decide about the
> syntax, etc. is a really bad idea. 
>
The point here is not to place a committee in charge of designing
features. To the contrary, the point of this proposal is to revamp our
protocol for handling proposals brought by others. The committee
merely serves as a gatekeeper to ensure that GHC's design and
implementation remains coherent and maintainable and its semantics
well-defined.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20160711/d961a59b/attachment.sig>