Proposal: Change to library proposal process

[wren ng thornton]

On 1/7/11 5:33 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Actually, I think those process ideas are in danger of being understood
> to belong to the "incremental" model, not the "wholesale" one. My
> suggestion would be:
>
> * appoint (self-select?) a group of people who will commit to actively
> seeing this wholesale redesign through to the end.
> * freeze the existing set of core packages, e.g. base, containers,
> binary, etc.
> * design from scratch a new-base package.
> * redesign the other core packages around the new-base.
> * make a big-bang release of all of the new core packages at once.
> * encourage other packages on hackage to abandon dependencies on the old
> base,
> and move to new-base plus fresh packages that depend on it.

+1.

Considering the number of sweeping changes we've known we wanted but 
have never gotten around to due to disruptivity, I wholeheartedly 
support this model of doing a wholesale revision of base in order to get 
things to a better state.

My only amendment would be that the new base should be base-5.0 (or 6.0 
or whatever) instead of a separate package called new-base.

-- 
Live well,
~wren