Quo vadis?

[Mario Blažević]

On 2018-10-05 09:10 AM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/05/2018 01:20 PM, Mario Blažević wrote:
>>      I hereby propose we formally disband the present Haskell 2020
>> committee. Our performance has been so dismal
>
> It has.
>
> And I should apologise in particular: I've just had far less time than
> I thought over the past year for a variety of reasons.
>
>> that I feel this is the
>> only course of action that gives Haskell 2020 any chance of fruition. A
>> new committee could then be formed with some more dedicated membership.
>
> I'm less convinced about that, though. I believe those who signed up
> for H2020 actually are people who believe in the value of an updated
> standard and has core expertise to make it happen.

     Regarding the beliefs, if we really represent the most zealous 
group of Haskell enthusiasts, I have to say the community is in deep 
trouble. I have no evidence, but I can only hope you're wrong.

     As for the expertise, my impression is that *everybody* who 
self-nominated for the committee got accepted. My own self-nomination 
e-mail [1] explicitly said that


> The main reason I'm applying is because I'm afraid that the commitee 
> might disband like the previous one. If there are enough members 
> already, feel free to ignore my nomination.

Yet I'm in. This was not a high bar to clear.


> I can't see how giving up and forming a new group would speed things 
> up or even
> increase the chance of success.

     I was kinda hoping for a Simon ex machina, where a few 
universally-accepted members of the community hand-pick a new committee. 
Alternatively, we could come up with some stricter criteria for the next 
committee before we disband but that assumes we can even get a quorum.

     Lest I'm suspected of some Machiavellian plot, let me be clear that 
I refuse to be a part of the next committee, if my proposal should be 
accepted. Honestly I feel that all members of the present committee with 
any sense of shame should recuse themselves as well, but that's not up 
to me.


> Instead, what about focusing on identifying a couple of things that
> absolutely would have to be in H2020 to make a new standard
> worthwhile, like multi-parameter type classes, possibly GADTs,
> then figure out what else is needed to support that (like what
> Anthony Clayden sketched), and with that as a basis, find out
> exactly what technical problems, if any, are hindering progress?
>
> If this could be neatly summarized, then we'd actually be in a position
> to make some progress.

     That is much the plan we agreed on over a year ago during ICFP 
2018. The activity since then is plain to see.


[1] 
http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2015-September/003939.html