From andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 23:29:59 2021
From: andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com (Andrew Lelechenko)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 23:29:59 +0000
Subject: aws package looking for maintainers 
Message-ID: <80DC35EA-01BA-4BE9-B9B7-E405ECC72A55@gmail.com>

aws package (https://hackage.haskell.org/package/aws <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/aws>) is looking for a new maintainer: https://github.com/aristidb/aws/pull/276#issuecomment-956212074 <https://github.com/aristidb/aws/pull/276#issuecomment-956212074>

Best regards,
Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20211101/83400fd6/attachment.html>

From hasufell at posteo.de  Tue Nov  2 18:39:30 2021
From: hasufell at posteo.de (Julian Ospald)
Date: Tue,  2 Nov 2021 18:39:30 +0000
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>

Well,

this confirms my disappointment.

Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the current
CLC?

>From reading this thread, my impression is rather that this
disengagement has been formalized in the form of a proposal process and
a statement that the "Core libraries comittee" is no longer responsible
for the "Core libraries", which I find rather odd.

It is my personal impression that the community wants an engaged CLC
that is able to moderate discussions, help with projects related to the
core libraries and possibly make decisions that are entirely technical
and bear no political nuances.

These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.

Cheers,
Julian


On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
> 1. On contrary, we narrowed CLC from 9 to 6 members to make it more manageable. 
> 
> 2. CLC was incapable to deal with wider ecosystem issues for years. It is better not to nourish false hopes.
> 
> I believe in “Make each committee do one thing well”. CLC’s primary and undivided responsibility is `base` and, as witnessed by a huge backlog, even this single thing was handled below expectations. It’s not like we are in a good position to accept additional, wider responsibilities.
> 
> Remember that “core libraries” is an abstract moniker without much consistency: e. g., before very recent `text` was not core, and it includes `mtl`, but not `transformers`, and does not include `containers`. So AFAIU CLC was never a correct body for ecosystem-wide changes. 
> 
> (FWIW I’m hugely interested in AFPP and happy to help in my personal capacity)
> 
> Best regards,
> Andrew
> 
> > On 31 Oct 2021, at 09:49, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de> wrote:
> > 
> > That sounds rather disappointing to me.
> > 
> > So what has been done to reboot the CLC is:
> > 
> > 1. add more people and 
> > 2. narrow the scope and offload ecosystem issues to the Haskell
> >   Foundation?
> > 
> > I've been trying to get input from the CLC for the past year on an issue
> > that affects potentially all of core libraries and I don't think it's feasible
> > to contact all of the maintainers isolated.
> > 
> > Does that mean CLC won't assist me in contacting core library
> > maintainers and moderating a discussion?
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23:57AM +0100, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
> >> As https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee/blob/main/README.md
> >> says, CLC owns, but does not maintain core libraries as long as they are kept
> >> in order by appointed maintainers. If you find a core library abandoned and
> >> neglected, raise an issue with CLC.
> >> 
> >> Otherwise proposals affecting core libraries should be discussed with
> >> respective maintainers first. They can seek CLC opinion on controversial
> >> changes, but are not obliged to. 
> >> 
> >> I suppose HF Tech Track could be a helpful body to ask a non-binding opinion on
> >> changes with a wider scope.
> >> 
> >> Best regards,
> >> Andrew
> >> 
> >> 
> >>    On 31 Oct 2021, at 00:08, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >>    Do I understand correctly that the CLC only governs base now?
> >> 
> >>    If not, where does one raise other issues that potentially affect core
> >>    libraries?
> >> 
> >>    On October 30, 2021 8:13:18 PM UTC, Andrew Lelechenko <
> >>    andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>        I'm happy to announce that Core Libraries Committee has completed
> >>        post-election reboot and now has a new home at https://github.com/
> >>        haskell/core-libraries-committee and a new GitHub-based process: https:
> >>        //github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee/blob/main/PROPOSALS.md.
> >> 
> >>        From now on proposals to change base should be raised as GitHub issues
> >>        instead of emails to libraries at .
> >> 
> >>        Best regards,
> >>        Andrew
> >> 
> >> 
> 

From simonpj at microsoft.com  Wed Nov  3 09:17:38 2021
From: simonpj at microsoft.com (Simon Peyton Jones)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:17:38 +0000
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>


|  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
|  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
|  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.

I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says

	As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not 
     maintain so-called Core Libraries

So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core libraries themselves to their respective maintainers.  That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?

The doc also says that if a core-library maintainer becomes unresponsive, the CLC will seek another.

What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core library". Can non-core libraries become core?  And vice versa?  What's the criterion?  I suppose it could simply be historical, but that seems less than ideal.

I welcome the CLC reboot, especially having a process so that we know what issues are in play, and what decisions have been taken.

Simon

[1] https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee

PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which point simonpj at microsoft.com will cease to work.  Use simon.peytonjones at gmail.com instead.  (For now, it just forwards to simonpj at microsoft.com.)

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: Libraries <libraries-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Julian
|  Ospald
|  Sent: 02 November 2021 18:40
|  To: Andrew Lelechenko <andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com>
|  Cc: libraries at haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: New CLC proposal process
|  
|  Well,
|  
|  this confirms my disappointment.
|  
|  Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the
|  current CLC?
|  
|  From reading this thread, my impression is rather that this
|  disengagement has been formalized in the form of a proposal process
|  and a statement that the "Core libraries comittee" is no longer
|  responsible for the "Core libraries", which I find rather odd.
|  
|  It is my personal impression that the community wants an engaged CLC
|  that is able to moderate discussions, help with projects related to
|  the core libraries and possibly make decisions that are entirely
|  technical and bear no political nuances.
|  
|  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
|  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
|  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
|  
|  Cheers,
|  Julian
|  
|  
|  On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
|  > 1. On contrary, we narrowed CLC from 9 to 6 members to make it more
|  manageable.
|  >
|  > 2. CLC was incapable to deal with wider ecosystem issues for years.
|  It is better not to nourish false hopes.
|  >
|  > I believe in "Make each committee do one thing well". CLC's primary
|  and undivided responsibility is `base` and, as witnessed by a huge
|  backlog, even this single thing was handled below expectations. It's
|  not like we are in a good position to accept additional, wider
|  responsibilities.
|  >
|  > Remember that "core libraries" is an abstract moniker without much
|  consistency: e. g., before very recent `text` was not core, and it
|  includes `mtl`, but not `transformers`, and does not include
|  `containers`. So AFAIU CLC was never a correct body for ecosystem-wide
|  changes.
|  >
|  > (FWIW I'm hugely interested in AFPP and happy to help in my personal
|  > capacity)
|  >
|  > Best regards,
|  > Andrew
|  >
|  > > On 31 Oct 2021, at 09:49, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de>
|  wrote:
|  > >
|  > > That sounds rather disappointing to me.
|  > >
|  > > So what has been done to reboot the CLC is:
|  > >
|  > > 1. add more people and
|  > > 2. narrow the scope and offload ecosystem issues to the Haskell
|  > >   Foundation?
|  > >
|  > > I've been trying to get input from the CLC for the past year on an
|  > > issue that affects potentially all of core libraries and I don't
|  > > think it's feasible to contact all of the maintainers isolated.
|  > >
|  > > Does that mean CLC won't assist me in contacting core library
|  > > maintainers and moderating a discussion?
|  > >
|  > >
|  > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23:57AM +0100, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
|  > >> As
|  > >>
|  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg
|  > >> ithub.com%2Fhaskell%2Fcore-libraries-
|  committee%2Fblob%2Fmain%2FREAD
|  > >>
|  ME.md&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e
|  > >>
|  95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63771
|  > >>
|  4752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
|  > >>
|  2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=bSfoLPWt2rMe
|  > >> P1mMkImk2U5jOM39BI%2FBDNtHisaKeIY%3D&amp;reserved=0
|  > >> says, CLC owns, but does not maintain core libraries as long as
|  > >> they are kept in order by appointed maintainers. If you find a
|  core
|  > >> library abandoned and neglected, raise an issue with CLC.
|  > >>
|  > >> Otherwise proposals affecting core libraries should be discussed
|  > >> with respective maintainers first. They can seek CLC opinion on
|  > >> controversial changes, but are not obliged to.
|  > >>
|  > >> I suppose HF Tech Track could be a helpful body to ask a
|  > >> non-binding opinion on changes with a wider scope.
|  > >>
|  > >> Best regards,
|  > >> Andrew
|  > >>
|  > >>
|  > >>    On 31 Oct 2021, at 00:08, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de>
|  wrote:
|  > >>
|  > >>    Do I understand correctly that the CLC only governs base now?
|  > >>
|  > >>    If not, where does one raise other issues that potentially
|  affect core
|  > >>    libraries?
|  > >>
|  > >>    On October 30, 2021 8:13:18 PM UTC, Andrew Lelechenko <
|  > >>    andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com> wrote:
|  > >>
|  > >>
|  > >>        I'm happy to announce that Core Libraries Committee has
|  completed
|  > >>        post-election reboot and now has a new home at
|  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
|  ub.com%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0
|  e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377147
|  52441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz
|  IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=PV%2BwQ3dDsgZsFB%2FJ
|  gTvCJ6%2BnaMCLY0pxWmG2GrOuTrI%3D&amp;reserved=0
|  > >>        haskell/core-libraries-committee and a new GitHub-based
|  process: https:
|  > >>        //github.com/haskell/core-libraries-
|  committee/blob/main/PROPOSALS.md.
|  > >>
|  > >>        From now on proposals to change base should be raised as
|  GitHub issues
|  > >>        instead of emails to libraries at .
|  > >>
|  > >>        Best regards,
|  > >>        Andrew
|  > >>
|  > >>
|  >
|  _______________________________________________
|  Libraries mailing list
|  Libraries at haskell.org
|  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.
|  haskell.org%2Fcgi-
|  bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40micr
|  osoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
|  cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637714752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
|  iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp
|  ;sdata=eaBTod9nh0hgY6vBatTLNYSd1vfPTNY8LKDd89wmyy0%3D&amp;reserved=0

From andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de  Wed Nov  3 09:43:39 2021
From: andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de (Andreas Abel)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 10:43:39 +0100
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <6b38a762-db8c-abd4-2c87-1a72cfd133b7@ifi.lmu.de>

 > What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core 
library". Can non-core libraries become core?  And vice versa?  What's 
the criterion?

As a human settlement evolves and grows, the need for more coordination 
and governance arises.  Maybe one of my great-grand-ancestors build and 
maintained a road from his farm to a shed.  But over the centuries both 
the farm and the shed evolved into villages, and the once private road 
is now essential for the lives of many.  So the community will assume 
ownership of the once private road.

In the same way, a "state of Haskell" is now emerging, and we cannot 
just rely on private maintenance of packages that are essential to the 
Haskell ecosystem.

What a criterion could be?  For a start, the order of magnitude on how 
many live packages rely on a certain package.

--Andreas

On 2021-11-03 10:17, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:
> 
> |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
> |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
> |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
> 
> I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says
> 
> 	As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not
>       maintain so-called Core Libraries
> 
> So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core libraries themselves to their respective maintainers.  That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?
> 
> The doc also says that if a core-library maintainer becomes unresponsive, the CLC will seek another.
> 
> What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core library". Can non-core libraries become core?  And vice versa?  What's the criterion?  I suppose it could simply be historical, but that seems less than ideal.
> 
> I welcome the CLC reboot, especially having a process so that we know what issues are in play, and what decisions have been taken.
> 
> Simon
> 
> [1] https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee
> 
> PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which point simonpj at microsoft.com will cease to work.  Use simon.peytonjones at gmail.com instead.  (For now, it just forwards to simonpj at microsoft.com.)
> 
> |  -----Original Message-----
> |  From: Libraries <libraries-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Julian
> |  Ospald
> |  Sent: 02 November 2021 18:40
> |  To: Andrew Lelechenko <andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com>
> |  Cc: libraries at haskell.org
> |  Subject: Re: New CLC proposal process
> |
> |  Well,
> |
> |  this confirms my disappointment.
> |
> |  Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the
> |  current CLC?
> |
> |  From reading this thread, my impression is rather that this
> |  disengagement has been formalized in the form of a proposal process
> |  and a statement that the "Core libraries comittee" is no longer
> |  responsible for the "Core libraries", which I find rather odd.
> |
> |  It is my personal impression that the community wants an engaged CLC
> |  that is able to moderate discussions, help with projects related to
> |  the core libraries and possibly make decisions that are entirely
> |  technical and bear no political nuances.
> |
> |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
> |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
> |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
> |
> |  Cheers,
> |  Julian
> |
> |
> |  On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
> |  > 1. On contrary, we narrowed CLC from 9 to 6 members to make it more
> |  manageable.
> |  >
> |  > 2. CLC was incapable to deal with wider ecosystem issues for years.
> |  It is better not to nourish false hopes.
> |  >
> |  > I believe in "Make each committee do one thing well". CLC's primary
> |  and undivided responsibility is `base` and, as witnessed by a huge
> |  backlog, even this single thing was handled below expectations. It's
> |  not like we are in a good position to accept additional, wider
> |  responsibilities.
> |  >
> |  > Remember that "core libraries" is an abstract moniker without much
> |  consistency: e. g., before very recent `text` was not core, and it
> |  includes `mtl`, but not `transformers`, and does not include
> |  `containers`. So AFAIU CLC was never a correct body for ecosystem-wide
> |  changes.
> |  >
> |  > (FWIW I'm hugely interested in AFPP and happy to help in my personal
> |  > capacity)
> |  >
> |  > Best regards,
> |  > Andrew
> |  >
> |  > > On 31 Oct 2021, at 09:49, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de>
> |  wrote:
> |  > >
> |  > > That sounds rather disappointing to me.
> |  > >
> |  > > So what has been done to reboot the CLC is:
> |  > >
> |  > > 1. add more people and
> |  > > 2. narrow the scope and offload ecosystem issues to the Haskell
> |  > >   Foundation?
> |  > >
> |  > > I've been trying to get input from the CLC for the past year on an
> |  > > issue that affects potentially all of core libraries and I don't
> |  > > think it's feasible to contact all of the maintainers isolated.
> |  > >
> |  > > Does that mean CLC won't assist me in contacting core library
> |  > > maintainers and moderating a discussion?
> |  > >
> |  > >
> |  > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23:57AM +0100, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
> |  > >> As
> |  > >>
> |  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg
> |  > >> ithub.com%2Fhaskell%2Fcore-libraries-
> |  committee%2Fblob%2Fmain%2FREAD
> |  > >>
> |  ME.md&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e
> |  > >>
> |  95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63771
> |  > >>
> |  4752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> |  > >>
> |  2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=bSfoLPWt2rMe
> |  > >> P1mMkImk2U5jOM39BI%2FBDNtHisaKeIY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> |  > >> says, CLC owns, but does not maintain core libraries as long as
> |  > >> they are kept in order by appointed maintainers. If you find a
> |  core
> |  > >> library abandoned and neglected, raise an issue with CLC.
> |  > >>
> |  > >> Otherwise proposals affecting core libraries should be discussed
> |  > >> with respective maintainers first. They can seek CLC opinion on
> |  > >> controversial changes, but are not obliged to.
> |  > >>
> |  > >> I suppose HF Tech Track could be a helpful body to ask a
> |  > >> non-binding opinion on changes with a wider scope.
> |  > >>
> |  > >> Best regards,
> |  > >> Andrew
> |  > >>
> |  > >>
> |  > >>    On 31 Oct 2021, at 00:08, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de>
> |  wrote:
> |  > >>
> |  > >>    Do I understand correctly that the CLC only governs base now?
> |  > >>
> |  > >>    If not, where does one raise other issues that potentially
> |  affect core
> |  > >>    libraries?
> |  > >>
> |  > >>    On October 30, 2021 8:13:18 PM UTC, Andrew Lelechenko <
> |  > >>    andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> |  > >>
> |  > >>
> |  > >>        I'm happy to announce that Core Libraries Committee has
> |  completed
> |  > >>        post-election reboot and now has a new home at
> |  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> |  ub.com%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0
> |  e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377147
> |  52441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz
> |  IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=PV%2BwQ3dDsgZsFB%2FJ
> |  gTvCJ6%2BnaMCLY0pxWmG2GrOuTrI%3D&amp;reserved=0
> |  > >>        haskell/core-libraries-committee and a new GitHub-based
> |  process: https:
> |  > >>        //github.com/haskell/core-libraries-
> |  committee/blob/main/PROPOSALS.md.
> |  > >>
> |  > >>        From now on proposals to change base should be raised as
> |  GitHub issues
> |  > >>        instead of emails to libraries at .
> |  > >>
> |  > >>        Best regards,
> |  > >>        Andrew
> |  > >>
> |  > >>
> |  >
> |  _______________________________________________
> |  Libraries mailing list
> |  Libraries at haskell.org
> |  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.
> |  haskell.org%2Fcgi-
> |  bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40micr
> |  osoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> |  cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637714752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
> |  iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp
> |  ;sdata=eaBTod9nh0hgY6vBatTLNYSd1vfPTNY8LKDd89wmyy0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> 

From oleg.grenrus at iki.fi  Wed Nov  3 10:53:55 2021
From: oleg.grenrus at iki.fi (Oleg Grenrus)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:53:55 +0200
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <6b38a762-db8c-abd4-2c87-1a72cfd133b7@ifi.lmu.de>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <6b38a762-db8c-abd4-2c87-1a72cfd133b7@ifi.lmu.de>
Message-ID: <dfee8480-9276-0369-9fe6-084acf4b95d7@iki.fi>

In that analogy though, when a private property is redeemed, the public
pays for that, and then owns and develops it further. You just enjoy the
fame of your great-grand-ancestors.

- Oleg

On 3.11.2021 11.43, Andreas Abel wrote:
> > What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core
> library". Can non-core libraries become core?  And vice versa?  What's
> the criterion?
>
> As a human settlement evolves and grows, the need for more
> coordination and governance arises.  Maybe one of my
> great-grand-ancestors build and maintained a road from his farm to a
> shed.  But over the centuries both the farm and the shed evolved into
> villages, and the once private road is now essential for the lives of
> many.  So the community will assume ownership of the once private road.
>
> In the same way, a "state of Haskell" is now emerging, and we cannot
> just rely on private maintenance of packages that are essential to the
> Haskell ecosystem.
>
> What a criterion could be?  For a start, the order of magnitude on how
> many live packages rely on a certain package.
>
> --Andreas
>
> On 2021-11-03 10:17, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:
>>
>> |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into
>> haskell
>> |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
>> |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
>>
>> I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says
>>
>>     As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not
>>       maintain so-called Core Libraries
>>
>> So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the
>> body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the
>> individual core libraries themselves to their respective
>> maintainers.  That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?
>>
>> The doc also says that if a core-library maintainer becomes
>> unresponsive, the CLC will seek another.
>>
>> What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core
>> library". Can non-core libraries become core?  And vice versa? 
>> What's the criterion?  I suppose it could simply be historical, but
>> that seems less than ideal.
>>
>> I welcome the CLC reboot, especially having a process so that we know
>> what issues are in play, and what decisions have been taken.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee
>>
>> PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which
>> point simonpj at microsoft.com will cease to work.  Use
>> simon.peytonjones at gmail.com instead.  (For now, it just forwards to
>> simonpj at microsoft.com.)
>>
>> |  -----Original Message-----
>> |  From: Libraries <libraries-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Julian
>> |  Ospald
>> |  Sent: 02 November 2021 18:40
>> |  To: Andrew Lelechenko <andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com>
>> |  Cc: libraries at haskell.org
>> |  Subject: Re: New CLC proposal process
>> |
>> |  Well,
>> |
>> |  this confirms my disappointment.
>> |
>> |  Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the
>> |  current CLC?
>> |
>> |  From reading this thread, my impression is rather that this
>> |  disengagement has been formalized in the form of a proposal process
>> |  and a statement that the "Core libraries comittee" is no longer
>> |  responsible for the "Core libraries", which I find rather odd.
>> |
>> |  It is my personal impression that the community wants an engaged CLC
>> |  that is able to moderate discussions, help with projects related to
>> |  the core libraries and possibly make decisions that are entirely
>> |  technical and bear no political nuances.
>> |
>> |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into
>> haskell
>> |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
>> |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
>> |
>> |  Cheers,
>> |  Julian
>> |
>> |
>> |  On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Andrew Lelechenko wrote:
>> |  > 1. On contrary, we narrowed CLC from 9 to 6 members to make it more
>> |  manageable.
>> |  >
>> |  > 2. CLC was incapable to deal with wider ecosystem issues for years.
>> |  It is better not to nourish false hopes.
>> |  >
>> |  > I believe in "Make each committee do one thing well". CLC's primary
>> |  and undivided responsibility is `base` and, as witnessed by a huge
>> |  backlog, even this single thing was handled below expectations. It's
>> |  not like we are in a good position to accept additional, wider
>> |  responsibilities.
>> |  >
>> |  > Remember that "core libraries" is an abstract moniker without much
>> |  consistency: e. g., before very recent `text` was not core, and it
>> |  includes `mtl`, but not `transformers`, and does not include
>> |  `containers`. So AFAIU CLC was never a correct body for
>> ecosystem-wide
>> |  changes.
>> |  >
>> |  > (FWIW I'm hugely interested in AFPP and happy to help in my
>> personal
>> |  > capacity)
>> |  >
>> |  > Best regards,
>> |  > Andrew
>> |  >
>> |  > > On 31 Oct 2021, at 09:49, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de>
>> |  wrote:
>> |  > >
>> |  > > That sounds rather disappointing to me.
>> |  > >
>> |  > > So what has been done to reboot the CLC is:
>> |  > >
>> |  > > 1. add more people and
>> |  > > 2. narrow the scope and offload ecosystem issues to the Haskell
>> |  > >   Foundation?
>> |  > >
>> |  > > I've been trying to get input from the CLC for the past year
>> on an
>> |  > > issue that affects potentially all of core libraries and I don't
>> |  > > think it's feasible to contact all of the maintainers isolated.
>> |  > >
>> |  > > Does that mean CLC won't assist me in contacting core library
>> |  > > maintainers and moderating a discussion?
>> |  > >
>> |  > >
>> |  > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23:57AM +0100, Andrew Lelechenko
>> wrote:
>> |  > >> As
>> |  > >>
>> |  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg
>> |  > >> ithub.com%2Fhaskell%2Fcore-libraries-
>> |  committee%2Fblob%2Fmain%2FREAD
>> |  > >>
>> |  ME.md&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e
>> |  > >>
>> |  95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63771
>> |  > >>
>> |  4752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
>> |  > >>
>> |  2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=bSfoLPWt2rMe
>> |  > >> P1mMkImk2U5jOM39BI%2FBDNtHisaKeIY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> |  > >> says, CLC owns, but does not maintain core libraries as long as
>> |  > >> they are kept in order by appointed maintainers. If you find a
>> |  core
>> |  > >> library abandoned and neglected, raise an issue with CLC.
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >> Otherwise proposals affecting core libraries should be discussed
>> |  > >> with respective maintainers first. They can seek CLC opinion on
>> |  > >> controversial changes, but are not obliged to.
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >> I suppose HF Tech Track could be a helpful body to ask a
>> |  > >> non-binding opinion on changes with a wider scope.
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >> Best regards,
>> |  > >> Andrew
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>    On 31 Oct 2021, at 00:08, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de>
>> |  wrote:
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>    Do I understand correctly that the CLC only governs base now?
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>    If not, where does one raise other issues that potentially
>> |  affect core
>> |  > >>    libraries?
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>    On October 30, 2021 8:13:18 PM UTC, Andrew Lelechenko <
>> |  > >>    andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com> wrote:
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>        I'm happy to announce that Core Libraries Committee has
>> |  completed
>> |  > >>        post-election reboot and now has a new home at
>> | 
>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
>> |  ub.com%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0
>> | 
>> e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377147
>> | 
>> 52441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz
>> |  IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=PV%2BwQ3dDsgZsFB%2FJ
>> |  gTvCJ6%2BnaMCLY0pxWmG2GrOuTrI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> |  > >>        haskell/core-libraries-committee and a new GitHub-based
>> |  process: https:
>> |  > >>        //github.com/haskell/core-libraries-
>> |  committee/blob/main/PROPOSALS.md.
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>        From now on proposals to change base should be raised as
>> |  GitHub issues
>> |  > >>        instead of emails to libraries at .
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>        Best regards,
>> |  > >>        Andrew
>> |  > >>
>> |  > >>
>> |  >
>> |  _______________________________________________
>> |  Libraries mailing list
>> |  Libraries at haskell.org
>> | 
>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.
>> |  haskell.org%2Fcgi-
>> |  bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&amp;data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40micr
>> | 
>> osoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
>> | 
>> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637714752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
>> |  iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp
>> |  ;sdata=eaBTod9nh0hgY6vBatTLNYSd1vfPTNY8LKDd89wmyy0%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

From hasufell at posteo.de  Wed Nov  3 12:47:12 2021
From: hasufell at posteo.de (Julian Ospald)
Date: Wed,  3 Nov 2021 12:47:12 +0000
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20211103124712.bftgvwye4lcl2gpj@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:17:38AM +0000, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> 
> |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
> |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
> |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
> 
> I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says
> 
> 	As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not 
>      maintain so-called Core Libraries
> 
> So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core libraries themselves to their respective maintainers.  That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?
> 

I'm confused. So I'll reiterate my position.

I've been working the past 7 months [0][1] on a proposal that
hasn't moved forward since 2015 [2].

I've posted it on discourse [3], on this mailing list [4] and have
contacted the CLC several times in private, of which there was no useful
feedback, except "yeah, go ahead".

In this very thread I was told that CLCs responsibility is base only
and I was offered no official help from the CLC, except an offer "in
personal capacity" (which I appreciate, btw) [5]. This could be
perceived as "yeah, not our problem, try somewhere else maybe", even if
it wasn't meant that way.

I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. A body that has existed for this
long can't just re-define its responsibilities, because they lack time
or engagement. Offloading core libraries issues to the Haskell
Foundation is in no way a sensible option. I appreciate all the work the
HF has done, but a healthy community doesn't exist of just one body that
manages everything. CLC has always had a very strong focus on technical
aptitude and had very little do do with politics. There's a reason for
that. Core libraries are a special matter and can't just be left to
individual maintainers. A body helping governing those should have strong
independence, so that it can say "yes" or "no" to anyone and anything,
without conflict of interest.

So after I've been neglected here, where do I go? Who do I ask?
I'm afraid this is a big problem. If we can't manage changes across core
libraries, then our library ecosystem is defunct at its very core.

So far, the only recent changes to core libraries was a proposal that
merely changed internal API and was authored by the maintainer of the
library itself [6][7]. I say "merely" not because it was little work
(it wasn't), but because changes to internal API are less controversial.

However, this is no proof that this community can manage changes outside of its
circle of maintainers.

I'm aware most people here are volunteers, but so am I. My concern here
is that we're reinforcing subtle cliquesque behavior and the only people
who can move anything forward are those with the right connections.

CLC is the body to provide these connections to anyone. If CLC can't do
this, then I consider this reboot a failure.

Cheers,
Julian

--

[0] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath
[1] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath/issues/10#issuecomment-957404954
[2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2015-June/025852.html
[3] https://discourse.haskell.org/t/reviving-the-abstract-filepath-proposal-afpp-in-user-space/2344
[4] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-August/031427.html
[5] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-October/031512.html
[6] https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/blob/main/proposals/accepted/002-text-utf-default.md#people
[7] https://github.com/haskell/text/blob/7a492ecff429748386dbde7da0db45a0bfb8dcda/text.cabal#L44

From carter.schonwald at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 14:00:06 2021
From: carter.schonwald at gmail.com (Carter Schonwald)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 10:00:06 -0400
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <20211103124712.bftgvwye4lcl2gpj@localhost.localdomain>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <20211103124712.bftgvwye4lcl2gpj@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <CAHYVw0w1BxdJ+S-t+uv0EoRvA3+rTeo2+7LTRzG+_ywtRKP6gQ@mail.gmail.com>

There’s also the claim of forward looking eminent domain rights, when as
best I can determine, what’s happened is maintainership of text fell into
new volunteers who work with/are currently clc.

This is also at tension with the claim of not being maintainers of core
Libs ….

On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 8:48 AM Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:17:38AM +0000, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> >
> > |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
> > |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
> > |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
> >
> > I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says
> >
> >       As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not
> >      maintain so-called Core Libraries
> >
> > So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body
> that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core
> libraries themselves to their respective maintainers.  That sounds OK to
> me, doesn't it?
> >
>
> I'm confused. So I'll reiterate my position.
>
> I've been working the past 7 months [0][1] on a proposal that
> hasn't moved forward since 2015 [2].
>
> I've posted it on discourse [3], on this mailing list [4] and have
> contacted the CLC several times in private, of which there was no useful
> feedback, except "yeah, go ahead".
>
> In this very thread I was told that CLCs responsibility is base only
> and I was offered no official help from the CLC, except an offer "in
> personal capacity" (which I appreciate, btw) [5]. This could be
> perceived as "yeah, not our problem, try somewhere else maybe", even if
> it wasn't meant that way.
>
> I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. A body that has existed for this
> long can't just re-define its responsibilities, because they lack time
> or engagement. Offloading core libraries issues to the Haskell
> Foundation is in no way a sensible option. I appreciate all the work the
> HF has done, but a healthy community doesn't exist of just one body that
> manages everything. CLC has always had a very strong focus on technical
> aptitude and had very little do do with politics. There's a reason for
> that. Core libraries are a special matter and can't just be left to
> individual maintainers. A body helping governing those should have strong
> independence, so that it can say "yes" or "no" to anyone and anything,
> without conflict of interest.
>
> So after I've been neglected here, where do I go? Who do I ask?
> I'm afraid this is a big problem. If we can't manage changes across core
> libraries, then our library ecosystem is defunct at its very core.
>
> So far, the only recent changes to core libraries was a proposal that
> merely changed internal API and was authored by the maintainer of the
> library itself [6][7]. I say "merely" not because it was little work
> (it wasn't), but because changes to internal API are less controversial.
>
> However, this is no proof that this community can manage changes outside
> of its
> circle of maintainers.
>
> I'm aware most people here are volunteers, but so am I. My concern here
> is that we're reinforcing subtle cliquesque behavior and the only people
> who can move anything forward are those with the right connections.
>
> CLC is the body to provide these connections to anyone. If CLC can't do
> this, then I consider this reboot a failure.
>
> Cheers,
> Julian
>
> --
>
> [0] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath
> [1]
> https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath/issues/10#issuecomment-957404954
> [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2015-June/025852.html
> [3]
> https://discourse.haskell.org/t/reviving-the-abstract-filepath-proposal-afpp-in-user-space/2344
> [4] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-August/031427.html
> [5] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-October/031512.html
> [6]
> https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/blob/main/proposals/accepted/002-text-utf-default.md#people
> [7]
> https://github.com/haskell/text/blob/7a492ecff429748386dbde7da0db45a0bfb8dcda/text.cabal#L44
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20211103/82222338/attachment.html>

From andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 21:12:26 2021
From: andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com (Andrew Lelechenko)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 21:12:26 +0000
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <CAHYVw0w1BxdJ+S-t+uv0EoRvA3+rTeo2+7LTRzG+_ywtRKP6gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <20211103124712.bftgvwye4lcl2gpj@localhost.localdomain>
 <CAHYVw0w1BxdJ+S-t+uv0EoRvA3+rTeo2+7LTRzG+_ywtRKP6gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7A7DBE07-B4D1-4DE0-AEEB-7156FA92BEC0@gmail.com>

`text` (and `text-icu`) were formally transferred to CLC by Bryan in March 2021.

README says that CLC __as a collective body__ does not maintain core libs. This does not prohibit its individual members to be maintainers, and they are indeed encouraged to do so.

Best regards,
Andrew

> On 3 Nov 2021, at 14:00, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There’s also the claim of forward looking eminent domain rights, when as best I can determine, what’s happened is maintainership of text fell into new volunteers who work with/are currently clc. 
> 
> This is also at tension with the claim of not being maintainers of core Libs …. 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 8:48 AM Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de <mailto:hasufell at posteo.de>> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:17:38AM +0000, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> > 
> > |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
> > |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
> > |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
> > 
> > I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says
> > 
> >       As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not 
> >      maintain so-called Core Libraries
> > 
> > So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core libraries themselves to their respective maintainers.  That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?
> > 
> 
> I'm confused. So I'll reiterate my position.
> 
> I've been working the past 7 months [0][1] on a proposal that
> hasn't moved forward since 2015 [2].
> 
> I've posted it on discourse [3], on this mailing list [4] and have
> contacted the CLC several times in private, of which there was no useful
> feedback, except "yeah, go ahead".
> 
> In this very thread I was told that CLCs responsibility is base only
> and I was offered no official help from the CLC, except an offer "in
> personal capacity" (which I appreciate, btw) [5]. This could be
> perceived as "yeah, not our problem, try somewhere else maybe", even if
> it wasn't meant that way.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. A body that has existed for this
> long can't just re-define its responsibilities, because they lack time
> or engagement. Offloading core libraries issues to the Haskell
> Foundation is in no way a sensible option. I appreciate all the work the
> HF has done, but a healthy community doesn't exist of just one body that
> manages everything. CLC has always had a very strong focus on technical
> aptitude and had very little do do with politics. There's a reason for
> that. Core libraries are a special matter and can't just be left to
> individual maintainers. A body helping governing those should have strong
> independence, so that it can say "yes" or "no" to anyone and anything,
> without conflict of interest.
> 
> So after I've been neglected here, where do I go? Who do I ask?
> I'm afraid this is a big problem. If we can't manage changes across core
> libraries, then our library ecosystem is defunct at its very core.
> 
> So far, the only recent changes to core libraries was a proposal that
> merely changed internal API and was authored by the maintainer of the
> library itself [6][7]. I say "merely" not because it was little work
> (it wasn't), but because changes to internal API are less controversial.
> 
> However, this is no proof that this community can manage changes outside of its
> circle of maintainers.
> 
> I'm aware most people here are volunteers, but so am I. My concern here
> is that we're reinforcing subtle cliquesque behavior and the only people
> who can move anything forward are those with the right connections.
> 
> CLC is the body to provide these connections to anyone. If CLC can't do
> this, then I consider this reboot a failure.
> 
> Cheers,
> Julian
> 
> --
> 
> [0] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath <https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath>
> [1] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath/issues/10#issuecomment-957404954 <https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath/issues/10#issuecomment-957404954>
> [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2015-June/025852.html <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2015-June/025852.html>
> [3] https://discourse.haskell.org/t/reviving-the-abstract-filepath-proposal-afpp-in-user-space/2344 <https://discourse.haskell.org/t/reviving-the-abstract-filepath-proposal-afpp-in-user-space/2344>
> [4] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-August/031427.html <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-August/031427.html>
> [5] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-October/031512.html <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-October/031512.html>
> [6] https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/blob/main/proposals/accepted/002-text-utf-default.md#people <https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/blob/main/proposals/accepted/002-text-utf-default.md#people>
> [7] https://github.com/haskell/text/blob/7a492ecff429748386dbde7da0db45a0bfb8dcda/text.cabal#L44 <https://github.com/haskell/text/blob/7a492ecff429748386dbde7da0db45a0bfb8dcda/text.cabal#L44>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20211111/bd187e0a/attachment.html>

From andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com  Fri Nov 12 01:04:39 2021
From: andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com (Andrew Lelechenko)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 01:04:39 +0000
Subject: New CLC proposal process
In-Reply-To: <20211103124712.bftgvwye4lcl2gpj@localhost.localdomain>
References: <6690A80D-A825-4FB5-8A6A-21078B793556@gmail.com>
 <7AA4202A-D081-4367-B5CC-DAA755419D86@posteo.de>
 <D3995316-7F6A-4B1C-8F22-F4C0FD698646@gmail.com>
 <20211031094913.5oz4tczlsrh4o2h5@localhost.localdomain>
 <75DC6F25-6515-426B-A1F7-A188E53427A8@gmail.com>
 <20211102183930.xs6pxayqje6ovf2m@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM9PR83MB048399FC3C58C905B2E26326AD8C9@AM9PR83MB0483.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <20211103124712.bftgvwye4lcl2gpj@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <FE6AF9C4-E291-4412-8950-EAACF710BBAE@gmail.com>

Julian, I would like to apologise for the treatment your efforts have received. This is not an appropriate behaviour towards open-source contributions. I believe that AFPP is an extremely important development towards better Haskell.

The thing is that a desired shape of CLC, capable of guiding and pushing wide ecosystem changes, has never existed in the first place. CLC was formed in 2013; how many significant shifts to core libraries happened since then? I remember only one: `random-1.2`, and even that was mostly backwards compatible, similar in this quality to the recent `text-2.0`. Core libraries were generally meant to stay in a stable, maintenance-only state, not needing much attention. 

I'd love to see the current CLC growing into such ecosystem force, but we are not there yet. We need to regain community’s trust and confidence, lost over the course of years. That’s why dealing with `base` backlog is the first order of business for now.

> where do I go? Who do I ask?

In theory you should go to maintainer(s) of relevant libraries and discuss your proposal with them first. If they ignore or neglect it, you can raise an issue with CLC, which will mediate or resolve the matter other way. If they do not have a strong opinion, they can consult CLC for a wider perspective and approval. 

But a dire state of current affairs is that `filepath` is without maintainer, so the very first step is impossible. We are blocked until we find a new active maintainer.

Best regards,
Andrew

> On 3 Nov 2021, at 12:47, Julian Ospald <hasufell at posteo.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:17:38AM +0000, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>> 
>> |  These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell
>> |  is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers
>> |  without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.
>> 
>> I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says
>> 
>> 	As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not 
>>     maintain so-called Core Libraries
>> 
>> So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core libraries themselves to their respective maintainers.  That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?
>> 
> 
> I'm confused. So I'll reiterate my position.
> 
> I've been working the past 7 months [0][1] on a proposal that
> hasn't moved forward since 2015 [2].
> 
> I've posted it on discourse [3], on this mailing list [4] and have
> contacted the CLC several times in private, of which there was no useful
> feedback, except "yeah, go ahead".
> 
> In this very thread I was told that CLCs responsibility is base only
> and I was offered no official help from the CLC, except an offer "in
> personal capacity" (which I appreciate, btw) [5]. This could be
> perceived as "yeah, not our problem, try somewhere else maybe", even if
> it wasn't meant that way.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. A body that has existed for this
> long can't just re-define its responsibilities, because they lack time
> or engagement. Offloading core libraries issues to the Haskell
> Foundation is in no way a sensible option. I appreciate all the work the
> HF has done, but a healthy community doesn't exist of just one body that
> manages everything. CLC has always had a very strong focus on technical
> aptitude and had very little do do with politics. There's a reason for
> that. Core libraries are a special matter and can't just be left to
> individual maintainers. A body helping governing those should have strong
> independence, so that it can say "yes" or "no" to anyone and anything,
> without conflict of interest.
> 
> So after I've been neglected here, where do I go? Who do I ask?
> I'm afraid this is a big problem. If we can't manage changes across core
> libraries, then our library ecosystem is defunct at its very core.
> 
> So far, the only recent changes to core libraries was a proposal that
> merely changed internal API and was authored by the maintainer of the
> library itself [6][7]. I say "merely" not because it was little work
> (it wasn't), but because changes to internal API are less controversial.
> 
> However, this is no proof that this community can manage changes outside of its
> circle of maintainers.
> 
> I'm aware most people here are volunteers, but so am I. My concern here
> is that we're reinforcing subtle cliquesque behavior and the only people
> who can move anything forward are those with the right connections.
> 
> CLC is the body to provide these connections to anyone. If CLC can't do
> this, then I consider this reboot a failure.
> 
> Cheers,
> Julian
> 
> --
> 
> [0] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath
> [1] https://github.com/hasufell/abstract-filepath/issues/10#issuecomment-957404954
> [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2015-June/025852.html
> [3] https://discourse.haskell.org/t/reviving-the-abstract-filepath-proposal-afpp-in-user-space/2344
> [4] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-August/031427.html
> [5] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2021-October/031512.html
> [6] https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/blob/main/proposals/accepted/002-text-utf-default.md#people
> [7] https://github.com/haskell/text/blob/7a492ecff429748386dbde7da0db45a0bfb8dcda/text.cabal#L44


From carter.schonwald at gmail.com  Sat Nov 13 14:47:41 2021
From: carter.schonwald at gmail.com (Carter Schonwald)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:47:41 -0500
Subject: aws package looking for maintainers
In-Reply-To: <80DC35EA-01BA-4BE9-B9B7-E405ECC72A55@gmail.com>
References: <80DC35EA-01BA-4BE9-B9B7-E405ECC72A55@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHYVw0xFJFvbN939--X_jEbisVt243_qit5gJ8uBEqV7m+5LLg@mail.gmail.com>

I caught up with aristid (if my spelling works ;) )

I’m gonna help him with near term release engineering tlc and figuring out
long term maintainership

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:30 PM Andrew Lelechenko <
andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com> wrote:

> aws package (https://hackage.haskell.org/package/aws) is looking for a
> new maintainer:
> https://github.com/aristidb/aws/pull/276#issuecomment-956212074
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20211113/905a0a91/attachment.html>

From emilypi at cohomolo.gy  Fri Nov 19 00:37:37 2021
From: emilypi at cohomolo.gy (Emily Pillmore)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 00:37:37 +0000
Subject: [ANN] Release candidate for `mtl-2.3`
Message-ID: <kw5nka11.2f3d2c7e-7c2e-40d8-a6f5-b7d7f2a58e73@we.are.superhuman.com>

Hello all,

Chessai and I are excited to announce a release candidate for `mtl`: [`mtl-2.3-rc3`]( https://github.com/haskell/mtl/releases/tag/v2.3-rc3 )!

## Timeline

The timeline for release will be as follows:

- This announcement marks the start of the timeline

- We will give 2 weeks of testing before considering release

- If no major issues are filed before then, `mtl-2.3-rc3` will be released as `mtl-2.3`, and if issues are found, they will be amended, and a new release candidate will be announced, resetting the 2 week period.

To test `mtl-2.3-rc3` for yourself, please feel free to add the following to your `cabal.project`:

```

source-repository-package

type: git

location: https://github.com/haskell/mtl.git

tag: 5d0f62b8007bb96e49f36a5544741cfe96a97130

```

or, if you're a stack user add this entry to your `extra-deps`:

```

- git: https://github.com/haskell/mtl.git

commit: 5d0f62b8007bb96e49f36a5544741cfe96a97130

```

And make sure to adjust all bounds/`allow-newer` accordingly. Please note that this release of `mtl` is a full major version release, and *will be the last of the 2.x series before work begins on updating the mtl class hierarchy*.

## Changelog

* Add instances for `Control.Monad.Trans.Writer.CPS` and `Control.Monad.Trans.RWS.CPS` from `transformers` 0.5.6 and add `Control.Monad.Writer.CPS` and `Control.Monad.RWS.CPS`.

* `Control.Monad.Cont` now re-exports `evalCont` and `evalContT`

* Add `tryError`, `withError`, `handleError`, and `mapError` to

`Control.Monad.Error.Class`, and re-export from `Control.Monad.Except`.

* Remove `Control.Monad.List` and `Control.Monad.Error`

* Remove instances of deprecated `ListT` and `ErrorT`

* Remove re-exports of `Error`

* Add instances for `Control.Monad.Trans.Accum` and ` Control.Monad.Trans.Select ( http://control.monad.trans.select/ ) `

* Remove re-exports of `Control.Monad`, `Control.Monad.Fix` and `Data.Monoid` modules

I'd like to thank the many contributors who offered patches, tickets, and other help in the preparation of this release. We appreciate all of your help!

Happy hacking!

Emily
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20211119/511ec634/attachment.html>