| I have re-read the entire document and I'm willing to try it out in | its current form.
Great | I'd like to use the remainder of this email to note | my remaining reservations, to clarify my thinking on these issues if | nothing else. I think everyone is likely to be open to improvements, and nuance matters here as well as substance. If you want to suggest changes right away, go ahead. But I understand you as saying "fine, let's try it and see". | yourself motivated through the waiting period there's a "pipeline | stall" effect, where new changes you want to make are stalled by | changes still under discussion. There's a balance isn't there? Changing the API of a widely used library imposes costs on lots of other people, and it's reasonable to take their concerns into account. Doing so necessarily gets in the way of the maintainer; if you were working on a private package you could just steam ahead. Balancing these concerns isn't a black and white matter, and it's hard to legislate for. I think the best we can do is draw attention to the issue and trust everyone (especially the maintainers) to behave reasonably. | libraries. The libraries process implicitly says that the maintainer | has to spend time talking to anyone that feels like having an | argument. Well I hope the new process makes it clear that the bigger your contribution the more you deserve to be heard; that unanimity is not required; and that we are going to trust the judgement of maintainers. All the proposed process does ask is that users have an opportunity to explain their concerns, and have them taken seriously. That isn't the same as a blank cheque on the maintainer's time. Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
