New CLC proposal process

Julian Ospald hasufell at
Wed Nov 3 12:47:12 UTC 2021

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.




More information about the Libraries mailing list