Proposal process status

Sven Panne svenpanne at
Thu Jul 21 08:59:24 UTC 2016

2016-07-20 23:16 GMT+02:00 Adam Foltzer <acfoltzer at>:

> [...] I'll quote the Motivations section:
>    1. Higher than necessary barrier-to-entry.
> For the purposes of this proposal, whether we would prefer a competing
> alternative is secondary to the fact that a Github account has become a
> very low common denominator for people wishing to participate in the
> development of open source projects. If we decide to proceed with a
> non-Github platform, we need to make a compelling case that the alternate
> choice does not raise the barrier to entry, or else we need to decide that
> we have different priorities for this effort.

+1 for that. Just to give a few numbers, just gathered from Hackage by some
grep/sed/wc "technology": 6799 of the 9946 packages (i.e. 68%) use GitHub.
The numbers are even higher when one considers the top 100 downloaded
packages only: 92% of them use GitHub. So like it or not, the Haskell
community already relies *heavily* on GitHub, and it seems that most people
don't have a problem with that or consider the alternatives inferior.

As Ben already said, using some proprietary SW is no real problem as long
as you can get all your data out of it (in a non-proprietary format). And I
don't understand the point about "proprietary client-side JavaScript" at
all: Should we stop using 99% of the Internet because some server sends us
some JavaScript we have no license for? And what about all those
routers/switches/etc. in between which connect you to the rest of the
world: They definitely run proprietary SW, and nobody cares (for a good

Don't get me wrong: I'm very much for Open Source, but let's not go over
the top here. Let's use a tool basically everybody knows and focus on the
content, not on the technology.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list