Breaking Changes and Long Term Support Haskell

[Simon Peyton Jones]

| For the record, I am also not sure Proposal 3 is a good idea :)
| 
| However, I do think we could clarify what the respective
| responsibilities of the core libraries committee and Haskell Prime
| committees are.

My instinct is this:
  Haskell Prime: language
  Core Libraries Committee: libraries

That seems simple.  If we try to move the largest and most challenging library design tasks from CLC to HP, I fear that we will overload the latter and devalue the former.

| You are absolutely correct that moving the question to the Haskell Prime
| committee risks pushing the issue around. The idea behind the separation
| outlined above is to reduce the treadmill; the two bodies use different
| processes, with different time frames, to arrive at decisions. Some
| library decisions may deserve a longer deliberative process.

I do agree that some library changes are far-reaching, and need a more deliberative process.  I think the CLC is in the process of developing such a process.  Moreover, I trust them to be able to tell the difference between low-impact and high-impact changes.

That said, as HP moves towards a new language Report, it would be good if CLC similarly moved towards a new libraries Report, so that there was a single unified document, just as we have had to date.

Simon