Report merged, steps to follow

[Richard Eisenberg]

Also sounds good to me. Thanks for laboriously breathing life back into this process! I will comment on the proposal sometime this week.

Richard

> On Nov 4, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Mario Blažević <blamario at ciktel.net> wrote:
> 
> Four weeks having passed since the previous discussion with no objections, I have now merged the content of the Haskell Report
> 
> from https://github.com/haskell/haskell-report
> 
> into https://github.com/haskell/rfcs
> 
> 
>     To remind everybody again, the point of this move was to enable adding an actionable change to the report to every RFC. From this point on, any proposal that passes the full process to becoming accepted can update the report by the simple act of getting merged.
> 
>     In order to test this process, over a year ago I've picked and submitted the least controversial RFC I could find, namely https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/17. There has been no objection to the proposal. In fact there has been no comment whatsoever, but I suppose that's beside the point. So today I have moved the RFC to the "Last Call" column (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/projects/1) as the first and only proposal to gain that awesome status.
> 
>     It's not at all clear what should happen to the RFC between this point and it getting merged, but I'm determined to test drive the process with it. This is my plan:
> 
> 1. I'm going to add update the report with a patch to the report content, then
> 
> 2. wait another two weeks for any objection before
> 
> 3. moving the proposal from the Last Call to the Ready for Report status, then
> 
> 4. announce that the proposal is Ready for Report and
> 
> 5. wait another two weeks for the full approval, then finally
> 
> 6. merge the RFC.
> 
> 
>     The only flaw in my cunning plan above is defining what constitutes "the full approval". The committee being rather ... disengaged and scattered, there is little hope of getting 50% of votes from all its members. The criteria of no raised objection, which I've used so far, seems much too lax for a full approval. I think the only reasonable fair criteria of success would be a public and unanimous approval by at least N committee members. I have no idea what N should be, but I know that if this test proposal can't garner N approvals, no proposal will ever pass the hurdle.
> 
>     To make it plain, I suggest we take the number of committee members that comment on the test proposal as the maximum bound of N. I do hope max(N) > 1.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime