Proposal: Change to library proposal process

[Henning Thielemann]

Simon Peyton-Jones schrieb:

> * Gregory writes "The fact of the matter is, I would definitely
>   like to contribute but I'm not going near our current process
>   with a 20-foot barge pole. And I'm unequivocally not the only
>   potential contributor who feels this way. From an interested
>   observer's perspective, it seems like libraries@ is where good
>   code goes to die, and I don't have the time, energy, or
>   patience to endure it."
> 
>   Others may agree or disagree with this view, but it is a *fact*
>   that G feels this way, and that he believes that others do too.
>   That's alarming to me, and I think we need to take it
>   seriously, since G has done us the courtesy of explaining his
>   position (thank you Gregory).  Quite what we might do to
>   address these concerns isn't so clear to me.  I'm agnostic
>   about technology, my gut feel is that the core issues are not
>   technological ones (eg github vs darcs).

My main reason for not proposing something for the base libraries the
official way is that I was never able to at least run a nightly build of
GHC and was even more scared by building GHC + base libraries myself. I
would highly appreciate a way to build base libraries without building GHC.