New CLC proposal process

Carter Schonwald carter.schonwald at
Wed Nov 3 14:00:06 UTC 2021

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> 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]
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]
> [7]
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list