Making decisions

[Edward Kmett]

There were something like 12 respondents initially, followed by 15-20
respondents after we broke the format out into multiple responses here on
the mailing list (with some overlap) and 115 in the straw poll with biased
wording that was sent out by some folks on #haskell (with more overlap),
but the results correlated pretty tightly.

-Edward


On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Ryan Newton <rrnewton at gmail.com> wrote:

> What was the sample size on the 85% vote?  Is there a website for keeping
> track of these persistently?
>
> Personally I think a persistent, open poll has a higher chance of
> capturing a wide participation.  Short fuse votes will exacerbate sampling
> bias.
>
> I'm a refugee from Scheme-istan.  Most important to me are not the
> specific technical outcomes, but that a sense of community cohesiveness
> survives, avoiding, for example the post-R6RS affair (divergent R7Rs,
> Racket split).
>
> Not that that could happen easily with Haskell. Thank goodness for a
> single dominant implementation ;). To you, GHC!
>
>
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
>> >
>> > responsible for maintenance, can make decisions, but is still bound
>> > by the votes on library proposals.
>>
>> Just to clarify the current libraries process:
>>
>> A few people have used the word "vote", but we don't vote on library
>> proposals. If we wanted to change that then we would first need to
>> answer the question of who was elligible to vote.
>>
>> There is some clarification on this in
>>     http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions
>> For example:
>>
>>     Proposals that have widespread support, and are accompanied by
>>     patches (preferably with tests and documentation), should normally
>>     be accepted by the maintainer.
>>
>>     It is up to the maintainer to decide what "widespread" means; in
>>     particular, it does not always mean "a majority of those who
>>     responded". The majority-responder story is vulnerable to selection
>>     bias; e.g. 7 people (out of a client base of hundreds) say "add this
>>     function" but the maintainer thinks it will make the interface
>>     incrementally more complicated without sufficient benefit.
>>
>> and:
>>
>>     The maintainer still has ultimate say in what changes are made, but
>>     the community should have the opportunity to comment on changes.
>>     However, unanimity (or even a majority) is not required.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ian
>> --
>> Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
>> Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130525/4c326565/attachment.htm>