Proposal process status

[Gershom B]

On July 21, 2016 at 8:51:15 AM, Yuras Shumovich (shumovichy at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> I think it is what the process should change. It makes sense to have
> two committees only if we have multiple language implementations, but
> it is not the case. Prime committee may accept or reject e.g. GADTs,
> but it will change nothing because people will continue using GADTs
> regardless, and any feature accepted by the Prime committee will
> necessary be compatible with GADTs extension.

I disagree. By the stated goals of the H2020 Committee, if it is successful, then by 2020 it will still for the most part have only standardized ony a _portion_ of the extentions that now exist today.

There’s always been a barrier between implementation and standard in the Haskell language, that’s precisely one of the things that _keeps_ it from having become entirely implementation-defined despite the prevelance of extensions.

Having two entirely different processes here (though obviously not without communication between the individuals involved) helps maintain that.

—Gershom