[Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

[Erik Hesselink]

I was always under the impression that +1/-1 was just a quick
indicator of opinion, not a vote, and that it was the core libraries
committee that would make the final call if enough consensus was
reached to enact the change.

Erik

On 6 October 2015 at 13:32, Henrik Nilsson
<Henrik.Nilsson at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Executive Summary: Please let us defer further discussion
> and ultimate decision on MRP to the resurrected HaskellPrime
> committee
>
> While we can discuss the extent of additional breakage
> MRP would cause, the fact remains it is a further
> breaking change. A survey of breakage to books as
> Herbert did is certainly valuable  (thanks!), but
> much breakage will (effectively) remain unquantifiable.
>
> It is also clear from the discussions over the last
> couple of weeks, on the Haskell libraries list as well
> as various other forums and social media, that MRP is
> highly contentions.
>
> This begs two questions:
>
>   1. Is the Haskell Libraries list and informal voting process
>      really an appropriate, or even acceptable, way to adopt
>      such far-reaching changes to what effectively amounts to
>      Haskell itself?
>
>   2. Why the hurry to push MRP through?
>
> As to question 1, to Graham Hutton's and my knowledge,
> the libraries list and its voting process was originally
> set up for 3rd-party libraries in fptools. It seems to
> have experienced some form of "mission creep" since.
> Maybe that is understandable given that there was no
> obvious alternative as HaskellPrime has been defunct
> for a fair few years. But, as has been pointed out in a
> number of postings, a lot of people with very valuable
> perspectives are also very busy, and thus likely to
> miss a short discussion period (as has happened in the
> past in relation to the Burning the Bridges proposal)
> and also have very little time for engaging in long and
> complicated e-mail discussions that, from their
> perspective, happen at a completely random point in
> time and for which they thus have not had a chance to
> set aside time even if they wanted to participate.
>
> Just as one data point, AMP etc. mostly passed Graham
> and me by simply because a) we were too busy to notice
> and b) we simply didn't think there was a mandate for
> such massive overhauls outside of a process like
> HaskellPrime. And we are demonstrably not alone.
>
> This brings us to question 2. Now that HaskellPrime is
> being resurrected, why the hurry to push MRP through?
> Surely HaskellPrime is the forum where breaking
> changes like MRP should be discussed, allowing as much
> time as is necessary and allowing for an as wide range
> of perspectives as possible to properly be taken into
> account?
>
> The need to "field test" MRP prior to discussing
> it in HaskellPrime has been mentioned. Graham and I
> are very sceptical. In the past, at least in the
> past leading up to Haskell 2010 or so, the community
> at large was not roped in as involuntary field testers.
>
> If MRP is pushed through now, with a resurrection of
> HaskellPrime being imminent, Graham and I strongly believe
> that risks coming across to a very large part of the
> Haskell community as preempting proper process by facing
> the new HaskellPrime committee with (yet another) fait
> accompli.
>
> Therefore, please let us defer further discussion and
> ultimate decision on MRP to the resurrected
> HaskellPrime committee, which is where it properly
> belongs. Otherwise, the Haskell community itself might
> be one of the things that MRP breaks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> /Henrik
>
> --
> Henrik Nilsson
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Nottingham
> nhn at cs.nott.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries