New CLC proposal process
hasufell at posteo.de
Tue Nov 2 18:39:30 UTC 2021
this confirms my disappointment.
Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the current
>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.
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,
> > 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
More information about the Libraries