New CLC proposal process

Oleg Grenrus oleg.grenrus at iki.fi
Wed Nov 3 10:53:55 UTC 2021 

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&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e
>> |  > >>
>> |  95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63771
>> |  > >>
>> |  4752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
>> |  > >>
>> |  2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bSfoLPWt2rMe
>> |  > >> P1mMkImk2U5jOM39BI%2FBDNtHisaKeIY%3D&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&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0
>> | 
>> e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377147
>> | 
>> 52441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz
>> |  IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PV%2BwQ3dDsgZsFB%2FJ
>> |  gTvCJ6%2BnaMCLY0pxWmG2GrOuTrI%3D&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&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40micr
>> | 
>> osoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
>> | 
>> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637714752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
>> |  iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp
>> |  ;sdata=eaBTod9nh0hgY6vBatTLNYSd1vfPTNY8LKDd89wmyy0%3D&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

More information about the Libraries mailing list