Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals

[Anthony Clayden]

On Th, 3 May 2018 at 13:53 UTC, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I am worried about the signal-to-noise ratio for those poor committee
members ...

Thanks Joachim, Yes that's exactly the worry. So please tell the rest of us
how to best use your collective time.

First help yourselves/get your own shit together:
there's now a long discussion on the committee mailing list about the
specifics of #99. There are good questions, good answers, good ideas. None
of the rest of use can contribute to that. The committee list is supposed
to be low volume/decision making only. WTF?

(That seems to be triggered by one particular committee member who
seldom/never looks at github, and prefers email discussion. Yous others
could perhaps coach him?)

> hmm, some of that sounds like it would be better suited for haskell-cafe,
StackOverflow, ...

My point about "sometimes it's more of a niggle" was aimed at exactly your
(Joachim's) series of proposals 'Resurrect Pattern Signatures'. The
motivation is it helps "confused beginners". But those beginners won't be
providing feedback on github. Instead you've got feedback from experienced
users who've all said they see no point in the proposal. So the discussion
has gone round and round and spun off other proposals. That whole series of
discussions would be better happening somewhere else: where?

David's quite correct
>> Haskell-cafe might work, but it's a bit tricky to pull up all the
language extension ideas discussed there.

My impression is not many people who could help refine a pre-proposal ever
take part in the cafe.

Stackoverflow likewise. (I did raise a 'how do I do this?' type question
there. It was David who responded, thank you. But I ended up answering it
myself; and it turned out there was already a proposal on the slate.)

>> My limited experience with glasgow-haskell-users is that it's where
threads go to die.

(I did try to continue one of David's threads there a few months ago.) But
yes, my experience too. And that's sad because it's a wasted resource. I'm
grateful to Simon for noticing this thread; but most topics I've raised on
ghc-users have gone nowhere. So then I've tried pursuing them by poaching
on Trac or github -- which is an abuse, I know.

> Most vague ideas get better when the proposer is nudged to sit down and write
it up properly! (And some get dropped in the process, which is also good
:-)).

Yes exactly what I'm trying to get to happen. How/where?

Here's a specific example: there's talk of baking ScopedTypeVariables into
the H2020 standard. There's also people unhappy with ScopedTypeVariables as
currently (I'm one, but I don't know if my reservations are the same as
others'). If we don't have an alternative proposal (and preferably an
experimental extension) by 2020, the committee can only go with the as
currently fait accompli or continue the H2010 status quo.

I can volunteer to at least scrape together all the objections to
ScopedTypeVariables as currently. It's not yet a proposal, so not on
github. Start a wiki page? A cafe thread? (It'll get lost.) A ghc-users
thread? (It'll get ignored.)


AntC
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 02.05.2018, 09:53 + schrieb Anthony Clayden:
> Speaking as a non-developer of ghc, often there's a bright idea with no very 
> clear notion how best it fits into Haskell, or could be implemented 
> effectively/efficiently:
> 
> * maybe it's something seen in another language;
> * maybe the proposer finds themself writing the same boilerplate
> repeatedly, and wonders if that's a common idiom the language could
> capture;
> * sometimes it starts as more of a 'how do I do this?' question; then
> you get told you can't; then other people chip in with 'yes I'd like
> to do that too'.
> * sometimes it's more of a niggle: this really annoys me/is
> awkward/is confusing every time I bump into it/even though I can work
> round it.


hmm, some of that sounds like it would be better suited for haskell-
cafe, StackOverflow, Reddit or your personal twitter feed, at least
until the idea has matured a little bit more. I am worried about the
signal-to-noise ratio for those poor committee members who have not
given up on following the GitHub notifications for the ghc-proposals
repository.

We can try, but I reserve the right to abondon the experiment if we end
up with a few unproductive long discussions around some obviously
whacky idea, and a larger number of vague abandoned “wouldn’t it be
nice” issues.

Most vague ideas get better when the proposer is nudged to sit down and
write it up properly! (And some get dropped in the process, which is
also good :-)).

Cheers,
Joachim
-- 
Joachim Breitner
  m...@joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals

[David Feuer]

My main motivation was that I had a vague idea, not remotely ready for a
proposal, and wanted a place to try hashing it out. My limited experience
with glasgow-haskell-users is that it's where threads go to die.
Haskell-cafe might work, but it's a bit tricky to pull up all the language
extension ideas discussed there. So I figured maybe the ghc-proposals issue
tracker would be the best way. Might be worth a try, anyway.

On Wed, May 2, 2018, 5:54 AM Anthony Clayden 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 8:28 PM, Simon Peyton Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> |  > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from
>> |  some community discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal.
>> |
>> |  Can I point out it's not only ghc developers who make proposals.
>
> | I'd rather you post this idea more widely.
>>
>
> (I meant for David to post more widely the idea of using Github issues
> tracker. Because I suspect the people who would most benefit from the
> 'community discussion' are not participants on ghc-devs.)
>
>
>> The Right Thing is surely for the main GHC proposals pav[g]e
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals
>> to describe how you can up a "pre-proposal".  That is, document
>> the entire process in one, easy to find, place.
>>
>> Mind you, I'm unclear about the distinction between a pre-proposal
>> and a proposal. ...
>
>
> Thanks Simon,
>
> Speaking as a non-developer of ghc, often there's a bright idea with no
> very clear notion how best it fits into Haskell, or could be implemented
> effectively/efficiently:
>
> * maybe it's something seen in another language;
> * maybe the proposer finds themself writing the same boilerplate
> repeatedly, and wonders if that's a common idiom the language could capture;
> * sometimes it starts as more of a 'how do I do this?' question; then you
> get told you can't; then other people chip in with 'yes I'd like to do that
> too'.
> * sometimes it's more of a niggle: this really annoys me/is awkward/is
> confusing every time I bump into it/even though I can work round it.
>
>
>  Both are drafts that invite community discussion,
>> prior to submitting to the committee for decision.
>>
>
> I'm guessing as to why David raised the question. I've noticed (a minority
> of) proposals generate a huge amount of discussion, a lot of which is: you
> can already do that, or nearly all of that, or there's good reasons why
> ghc/Haskell shouldn't do that. Then maybe the difficulty that needs
> tackling is that the submitter isn't really following the process/perhaps
> the process document should be clearer about what threshold of readiness
> the ideas should be in before formalising(?) I'll try to avoid specifics
> here, but two proposals I can think of essentially amounted to: Language
> XXX has YYY; language XXX is similar to Haskell; I think YYY is great;
> please put YYY in Haskell; P.S. I don't really understand ghc and all the
> extensions it now offers.
>
> As you've remarked yourself, sometimes the 'community discussion' gets so
> convoluted and sidetracked it's impossible to make out where the proposal
> is at, and whether all objections have been addressed. That's the point at
> which IMO the proposal should be withdrawn and resubmitted as a 'fresh
> start'.
>
> OTOH, as I said, there's plenty of other forums those less
> formal/pre-proposal discussions could happen. Some used to happen on
> Trac/started life as bug reports -- which is rightfully discouraged.
> _Could_ happen but often doesn't raise a response. What if Github issues
> tracker just becomes another backwater where ideas go to get ignored?
>
>
> AntC
>
>
>>
>> |  -Original Message-
>> |  From: Glasgow-haskell-users > |  boun...@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Anthony Clayden
>> |  Sent: 02 May 2018 02:34
>> |  To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org; ghc-d...@haskell.org
>> |  Subject: Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals
>> |
>> |  > On May 1, 2018, at 2:24 PM, David Feuer > |  gmail.com> wrote:
>> |  >
>> |  > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from
>> |  some community discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal.
>> |
>> |  Can I point out it's not only ghc developers who make proposals. I'd
>> |  rather you post this idea more widely.
>> |
>> |  As a datapoint, I found ghc-users and the café just fine for those
>> |  discussions.
>> |  Ghc-users seems to have very low traffic/is rather wasted currently.
>> |  And I believe a lot of people pre-discuss on reddit.
>> |  For ideas that have been on the back burner for a long time, there's
>> |  often wiki pages. (For example re Quantified
>> |  Constraints.)
>> |
>> |  > I'd like to propose that we open up the GitHub issues
>> |  tracker for ghc-proposals to serve as a place to discuss pre-proposal
>> |  ideas. Once those discussions converge on one or a few specific plans,
>> |  someone can write a proper proposal.
>> |
>> |  I'm not against that. There 

Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals

[Anthony Clayden]

On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 8:28 PM, Simon Peyton Jones 
wrote:

> |  > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from
> |  some community discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal.
> |
> |  Can I point out it's not only ghc developers who make proposals.

| I'd rather you post this idea more widely.
>

(I meant for David to post more widely the idea of using Github issues
tracker. Because I suspect the people who would most benefit from the
'community discussion' are not participants on ghc-devs.)


> The Right Thing is surely for the main GHC proposals pav[g]e
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals
> to describe how you can up a "pre-proposal".  That is, document
> the entire process in one, easy to find, place.
>
> Mind you, I'm unclear about the distinction between a pre-proposal
> and a proposal. ...


Thanks Simon,

Speaking as a non-developer of ghc, often there's a bright idea with no
very clear notion how best it fits into Haskell, or could be implemented
effectively/efficiently:

* maybe it's something seen in another language;
* maybe the proposer finds themself writing the same boilerplate
repeatedly, and wonders if that's a common idiom the language could capture;
* sometimes it starts as more of a 'how do I do this?' question; then you
get told you can't; then other people chip in with 'yes I'd like to do that
too'.
* sometimes it's more of a niggle: this really annoys me/is awkward/is
confusing every time I bump into it/even though I can work round it.


 Both are drafts that invite community discussion,
> prior to submitting to the committee for decision.
>

I'm guessing as to why David raised the question. I've noticed (a minority
of) proposals generate a huge amount of discussion, a lot of which is: you
can already do that, or nearly all of that, or there's good reasons why
ghc/Haskell shouldn't do that. Then maybe the difficulty that needs
tackling is that the submitter isn't really following the process/perhaps
the process document should be clearer about what threshold of readiness
the ideas should be in before formalising(?) I'll try to avoid specifics
here, but two proposals I can think of essentially amounted to: Language
XXX has YYY; language XXX is similar to Haskell; I think YYY is great;
please put YYY in Haskell; P.S. I don't really understand ghc and all the
extensions it now offers.

As you've remarked yourself, sometimes the 'community discussion' gets so
convoluted and sidetracked it's impossible to make out where the proposal
is at, and whether all objections have been addressed. That's the point at
which IMO the proposal should be withdrawn and resubmitted as a 'fresh
start'.

OTOH, as I said, there's plenty of other forums those less
formal/pre-proposal discussions could happen. Some used to happen on
Trac/started life as bug reports -- which is rightfully discouraged.
_Could_ happen but often doesn't raise a response. What if Github issues
tracker just becomes another backwater where ideas go to get ignored?


AntC


>
> |  -Original Message-
> |  From: Glasgow-haskell-users  |  boun...@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Anthony Clayden
> |  Sent: 02 May 2018 02:34
> |  To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org; ghc-d...@haskell.org
> |  Subject: Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals
> |
> |  > On May 1, 2018, at 2:24 PM, David Feuer  |  gmail.com> wrote:
> |  >
> |  > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from
> |  some community discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal.
> |
> |  Can I point out it's not only ghc developers who make proposals. I'd
> |  rather you post this idea more widely.
> |
> |  As a datapoint, I found ghc-users and the café just fine for those
> |  discussions.
> |  Ghc-users seems to have very low traffic/is rather wasted currently.
> |  And I believe a lot of people pre-discuss on reddit.
> |  For ideas that have been on the back burner for a long time, there's
> |  often wiki pages. (For example re Quantified
> |  Constraints.)
> |
> |  > I'd like to propose that we open up the GitHub issues
> |  tracker for ghc-proposals to serve as a place to discuss pre-proposal
> |  ideas. Once those discussions converge on one or a few specific plans,
> |  someone can write a proper proposal.
> |
> |  I'm not against that. There gets to be a lot of cruft on some
> |  discussions about proposals, so I'd expect we could archive it all
> |  once a proposal is more formalised.
> |
>
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

RE: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals

[Simon Peyton Jones via Glasgow-haskell-users]

|  > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from
|  some community discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal.
|  
|  Can I point out it's not only ghc developers who make proposals. I'd
|  rather you post this idea more widely.

The Right Thing is surely for the main GHC proposals pave
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals
to describe how you can up a "pre-proposal".  That is, document
the entire process in one, easy to find, place.

Mind you, I'm unclear about the distinction between a pre-proposal
and a proposal.  Both are drafts that invite community discussion,
prior to submitting to the committee for decision.

Simon

|  -Original Message-
|  From: Glasgow-haskell-users  On Behalf Of Anthony Clayden
|  Sent: 02 May 2018 02:34
|  To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org; ghc-d...@haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: Open up the issues tracker on ghc-proposals
|  
|  > On May 1, 2018, at 2:24 PM, David Feuer  wrote:
|  >
|  > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from
|  some community discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal.
|  
|  Can I point out it's not only ghc developers who make proposals. I'd
|  rather you post this idea more widely.
|  
|  As a datapoint, I found ghc-users and the café just fine for those
|  discussions.
|  Ghc-users seems to have very low traffic/is rather wasted currently.
|  And I believe a lot of people pre-discuss on reddit.
|  For ideas that have been on the back burner for a long time, there's
|  often wiki pages. (For example re Quantified
|  Constraints.)
|  
|  > I'd like to propose that we open up the GitHub issues
|  tracker for ghc-proposals to serve as a place to discuss pre-proposal
|  ideas. Once those discussions converge on one or a few specific plans,
|  someone can write a proper proposal.
|  
|  I'm not against that. There gets to be a lot of cruft on some
|  discussions about proposals, so I'd expect we could archive it all
|  once a proposal is more formalised.
|  
|  AntC
|  
|  ___
|  Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
|  Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
|  http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users