Process proposal: Require explicit user-oriented timelines in library proposals

[Edward Kmett]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> wrote:

> Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> writes:
>
> I would love to pitch in however it doesn't seem that users outside of
> the committee have write access to wiki.


I'm pretty sure that Herbert can set you up with access. I'm more than
willing to consent to that here from our side.

Right. However, keep in mind that it's possible that the Three-Release
> Policy may take a hit even if -Wcompat remains independent due to GHC's
> stance on -Wall stability.


That does indeed seem to be likely the case. We the committee can't control
what GHC chooses to do in this regard. We extended the olive branch of the
3 release policy to those concerned that the rate of change was too high.

I can say that from our perspective, having the goal of meeting such a
policy has helped a great deal from a planning perspective. It took
timelines from something completely arbitrary to something forced into a
measured pace.

To strain that metaphor, we'll prune branches off that branch as needed to
accommodate the pressures on the committee from both sides.

I do somewhat fear that if we fold -Wcompat into -Wall that at least
pragmatically the 3 release policy will no longer really serve the needs of
anyone.

Really, my critique is mostly on the presentation of this information.
> It's possible for a user to determine the implications of a given
> proposal with what is on the wiki currently, but it's not as easy as it
> could be.


Sure. We could definitely use help on the presentation side!

-Edward
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20160214/50320b1d/attachment.html>