From mblazevic at stilo.com Wed Jan 16 20:00:49 2019 From: mblazevic at stilo.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Bla=c5=beevi=c4=87?=) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:00:49 -0500 Subject: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal In-Reply-To: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> References: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> Message-ID: A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and MonadOfNoReturn proposals. This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a glimmer of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only problem. In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been vocal about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us Haskell '98. A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion, so I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is resolved. I still think the best course of action may be to disband the current disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed [2] before establishing the new process. [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690 [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html From ollie at ocharles.org.uk Wed Jan 16 20:10:59 2019 From: ollie at ocharles.org.uk (Oliver Charles) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:10:59 +0000 Subject: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> Message-ID: Is there information anywhere on the process for acceptance/rejection criteria. It sounds like hvr can outright reject any proposal - are there others with that power? What is generally required for acceptance? Not meant critically, just interested On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, 8:01 pm Mario Blažević A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the > Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on > the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and > MonadOfNoReturn proposals. > > This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a glimmer > of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the > RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the > commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only problem. > > In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the > combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that > happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not > be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds > that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been vocal > about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us Haskell '98. > > A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion, so > I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is resolved. > I still think the best course of action may be to disband the current > disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed [2] before > establishing the new process. > > [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690 > [2] > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From flippa at flippac.org Wed Jan 16 20:26:28 2019 From: flippa at flippac.org (Philippa Cowderoy) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:26:28 +0000 Subject: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> Message-ID: I'm not committee, so I don't need to be part of any consensus. Myself I wouldn't bundle something I want up with something that's needed just to get it to pass anyway, for what it's worth. I'd rather keep my own ideas modular enough they don't bog anything down! So if I try to push my pet feature further it'll be its own proposal and I for one can't tie it to anything. But I certainly understand where you're coming from on this. I'm sorry if I've made things harder for you here, and I have to admit I had preferred that MFP and MNR wait their turn. I'm hoping that one way or another, Herbert's proposal means we reach some kind of conclusion in the long run - at the least, we will have two mutually-exclusive proposals on the table and an obligation to pick one, refine quickly or go home. I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed off the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort involved. On 16/01/2019 20:00, Mario Blažević wrote: > A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the > Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on > the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and > MonadOfNoReturn proposals. > > This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a > glimmer of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the > RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the > commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only > problem. > > In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the > combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that > happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not > be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds > that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been > vocal about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us > Haskell '98. > > A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion, > so I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is > resolved. I still think the best course of action may be to disband > the current disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed > [2] before establishing the new process. > > [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690 > [2] > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime From mblazevic at stilo.com Wed Jan 16 20:51:11 2019 From: mblazevic at stilo.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Bla=c5=beevi=c4=87?=) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:51:11 -0500 Subject: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> Message-ID: <89ecd5a5-f0f5-8986-be95-b70c7cd44c02@stilo.com> On 2019-01-16 3:10 p.m., Oliver Charles wrote: > Is there information anywhere on the process for acceptance/rejection > criteria. It sounds like hvr can outright reject any proposal - are > there others with that power? What is generally required for acceptance? > Not meant critically, just interested Every active member of the commitee has that power. We could contemplate a different approach, like voting, if all members of the commitee were active. When you have only a couple of responses to a proposal, consensus among those who respond is the only possible way to go. > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, 8:01 pm Mario Blažević wrote: > > A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the > Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on > the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and > MonadOfNoReturn proposals. > > This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a > glimmer > of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the > RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the > commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only > problem. > > In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the > combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that > happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not > be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds > that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been > vocal > about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us Haskell > '98. > > A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion, so > I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is > resolved. > I still think the best course of action may be to disband the current > disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed [2] before > establishing the new process. > > [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690 > [2] > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > -- Mario Blazevic mblazevic at stilo.com Stilo International This message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s) please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. From mblazevic at stilo.com Thu Jan 17 16:46:14 2019 From: mblazevic at stilo.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Bla=c5=beevi=c4=87?=) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:46:14 -0500 Subject: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> Message-ID: <41de01e4-0baf-f884-02d0-eed7fd321885@stilo.com> On 2019-01-16 3:26 p.m., Philippa Cowderoy wrote: > ... > I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to > get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed off > the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort involved. Apologies, for some reason I thought you were on the committee. Your self-description sounds like you'd fit right in. From flippa at flippac.org Thu Jan 17 20:07:52 2019 From: flippa at flippac.org (Philippa Cowderoy) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 20:07:52 +0000 Subject: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal In-Reply-To: <41de01e4-0baf-f884-02d0-eed7fd321885@stilo.com> References: <9a74525a-e44a-bc0a-6475-9d56dec13005@ciktel.net> <41de01e4-0baf-f884-02d0-eed7fd321885@stilo.com> Message-ID: <11508a53-a737-d4dd-c656-a4b866238be0@flippac.org> On 17/01/2019 16:46, Mario Blažević wrote: > On 2019-01-16 3:26 p.m., Philippa Cowderoy wrote: >> ... >> I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to >> get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed >> off the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort >> involved. > >     Apologies, for some reason I thought you were on the committee. > Your self-description sounds like you'd fit right in. > I couldn't possibly comment! I'll admit it's left me with an eye for small-but-significant changes though. A lot of my wider involvement with the community has been of a more "social" nature, including my stint as Anglohaskell's meta-organiser and sometimes organiser, though I also mentored the Summer of Code project that got Parsec 3 off the ground once upon a time too. Thinking about it, that one does suggest I may have a talent for causing inevitable yet untold chaos! Perhaps that made it inevitable that someone would invite me onto this list in the dim and distant past? -- Philippa