Committee M.O. Change Proposals (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

[Herbert Valerio Riedel]

Hello,

On 2015-10-21 at 02:39:57 +0200, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:

[...]

> In effect, only those who actively follow the libraries list have had a
> voice in these decisions. Maybe that is what the community wants. I hope
> not. How then can people like me (and Henrik and Graham) have a say
> without committing to actively following the libraries list?
>  
> We have a method to solve this: elected representatives. Right now the
> Core Libraries Committee elects its own members; perhaps it is time for
> that to change.

[...]

> Proposal 1: Move to community election of the members of the Core
> Libraries Committee. Yes, I know this would have its own issues.

How exactly do public elections of representatives address the problem
that some people feel left out? Have you considered nominating yourself
or somebody else you have confidence in for the core libraries
committee? You'd still have to find somebody to represent your
interests, regardless of whether the committee is self-elected or
direct-elected.

Here's some food for thought regarding language design by voting or its
indirect form via a directly elected language committee:

Back in February there was a large-scale survey which resulted (see [2]
for more details) in a rather unequivocal 4:1 majority *for* going
through with the otherwise controversial FTP implementation. If the
community elections would result in a similar spirit, you'd could easily
end up with a similarly 4:1 pro-change biased committee. Would you
consider that a well balanced committee formation?

> Proposal 2: After a suitable period of discussion on the libraries list,
> the Core Libraries Committee will summarize the arguments for and
> against a proposal and post it, along with a (justified) preliminary
> decision, to a low-traffic, announce-only email list. After another
> suitable period of discussion, they will issue a final decision. What is
> a suitable period of time? Perhaps that depends on the properties of the
> proposal, such as whether it breaks backwards compatibility.

That generally sounds like a good compromise, if this actually helps
reaching the otherwise unreachable parts of the community and have their
voices heard.

> Proposal 3: A decision regarding any proposal that significantly affects
> backwards compatibility is within the purview of the Haskell Prime
> Committee, not the Core Libraries Committee.

I don't see how that would change much. The prior Haskell Prime
Committee has been traditionally self-elected as well. So it's just the
label of the committee you'd swap out.

In the recent call of nominations[1] for Haskell Prime, the stated area
of work for the new nominations was to take care of the *language* part,
because that's what we are lacking the workforce for.

Since its creation for the very purpose of watching over the core
libraries, the core-libraries-committee has been almost exclusively busy
with evaluating and deciding about changes to the `base` library and
overseeing their implementation. Transferring this huge workload to the
new Haskell Prime committee members who have already their hands full
with revising the language part would IMO just achieve to reduce the
effectiveness of the upcoming Haskell Prime committee, and therefore
increase the risk of failure in producing an adequate new Haskell Report
revision.

Regards,
  H.V.Riedel

 [1]: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2015-September/003936.html
 [2]: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-February/118336.html