New Libraries Proposal process
chessai1996 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 12 03:40:25 UTC 2020
I think that is good feedback.
I have been talking with a lot of people since the announcement who have
made similar points, and CLC has decided to roll back this proposals
process. Discussion is going to be happening on the CLC mailing list about
what to do.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 22:36 Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com>
> Are you sure about this approach? I think you need to start with an open
> discussion , And have a open ended thread about ideas for how to improve
> how we do things.
> A proposals process / formal process isn’t always a win. This sortah
> approach demands a lot more dedicated human power and support admin than I
> think is tenable for the libraries ecosystem today.
> Merry Friday and be well
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: chessai <chessai1996 at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:02 PM
> Subject: Re: New Libraries Proposal process
> To: Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com>
> This has been discussed on and off for a few months now, amongst CLC,
> between members of CLC and GHC Steering/Haskell.org, Tweag, Target, IOHK,
> Serokell, etc. My only regret is that a lot of the conversation happened
> > All libraries process needs to start on the libraries mailing list
> Not anymore.
> The libraries mailing list has proven to be ineffective when it comes to
> getting stuff done. Mailing lists are not the right format for this.
> Furthermore, I don't see how emails are more conducive to deep discussion
> than github comments. There are many GitHub issue trackers and PRs which
> show otherwise.
> This new process will never be perfect and of course will need some
> tweaking, but the current process is very poor and gets little done. Most
> proposals I ever see end up with no resolution.
> Since the GHC Proposals process has proven to be a net positive, much of
> the structure was taken from there and adapted to core libraries.
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 19:52 Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com>
>> Where was this discussed or proposed? All libraries process needs to
>> start on the libraries mailing list. And soemtimes Perhaps moving to clc
>> list for resolving tie breaking on controversial choices.
>> The libraries archive goes back pretty far and email threading seems to
>> scale far better for participating in complex discussions than does githubs
>> comment collapsing on large discussions.
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:20 PM chessai <chessai1996 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is a new Libraries Proposal process, inspired by the GHC Proposals
>>> Core Library APIs are critical. It's easy for a sensible proposal to
>>> languish or simply get dropped on the floor; and (in the other direction) a
>>> bit too easy for a proposal to make it into the core libraries without
>>> receiving the scrutiny it deserves. Most of the proposals that have been
>>> made on this mailing list, become lost to the archives. It's not easy for
>>> anyone to answer the question "what decisions has the CLC made recently?"
>>> without trawling a huge email archive.
>>> Of course, this is mostly for breaking changes or "big" introductions;
>>> we don't need a full proposal over something tiny, e.g. "a module from
>>> vector is missing a fold". That would be more appropriate on vector's issue
>>> tracker, and left to the maintainers to deal with.
>>> I encourage anyone interested to get started by reading the README at
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries