[Haskell-cafe] Guidelines for proposing library changes

Donald Bruce Stewart dons at cse.unsw.edu.au
Thu Oct 26 05:10:07 EDT 2006

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:26:44PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:58:59AM +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> > > After some discussion on the libraries list, I've put up the suggested
> > > 'best practice' for proposing library changes, here:
> > > 
> > >     http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions 
> > 
> > I see you've deleted the bit about silence being taken as consent.
> > I think we need something like this, or at least a presumption that the
> > change will happen unless someone objects, to encourage a discussion, and
> > to help focus the discussion.
> Actually, I think this is essential to improving the process.  As it is,
> that page lists lots of extra work for the proposer, but gives nothing
> in return.  After they do all that work, they're in the same situation
> they are now: if the proposal doesn't get a chorus of approval, it's left
> in limbo, with no indication of why.  If we really do want to encourage
> submissions, we need balancing obligations on reviewers, and this is
> the simplest, most flexible way to achieve them.

Yes, given the extra, work, the obligation should be on the libraries
hackers to review and note any objections. 

The extra burden on the proposer to actually craft a patch and produce
the code, will rule out crazy ideas, I suspect. So silence == consent
makes sense, and should work I think, under our more rigorous submission

-- Don

P.S. Now if Haskell' had the same requirement, that any submission must
come with a GHC, Hugs or Yhc patch to implement said proposal we'd be in
great shape...

More information about the Libraries mailing list