I think the most important thing is to be able to point to a designated point where discussions must take place. This means if anything comes up elsewhere it can be routed there to be "official".
Alan On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Yuras Shumovich <shumovi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: > > On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 11:36 +0200, Ben Gamari wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > As you hopefully know, a few weeks ago we proposed a new process [1] > > for > > collecting, discussing, and deciding upon changes to GHC and its > > Haskell > > superset. While we have been happy to see a small contingent of > > contributors join the discussion, the number is significantly smaller > > than the set who took part in the earlier Reddit discussions. > > > > In light of this, we are left a bit uncertain of how to proceed. So, > > we would like to ask you to let us know your feelings regarding the > > proposed process: > > > > * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the > > status > > quo? > > Yes, definitely. The existing process is too vague, so formalizing it > is a win in any case. > > > > > > * Why? (this needn't be long, just a sentence hitting the major > > points) > > > > * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if > > anything? > > > The proposed process overlaps with the Language Committee powers. In > theory the Committee works on language standard, but de facto Haskell > is GHC/Haskell and GHC/Haskell is Haskell. Adding new extension to GHC > adds new extension to Haskell. So I'd like the process to enforce > separation between experimental extensions (not recommended in > production code) and language improvements. I'd like the process to > specify how the GHC Committee is going to communicate and share powers > with the Language Committee. > > Thanks, > Yuras. > > > > > That's all. Again, feel free to reply either on the GitHub pull > > request > > [1] or this thread if you would prefer. Your response needn't be > > long; > > we just want to get a sense of how much of the community feels that > > 1) > > this effort is worth undertaking, and 2) that the proposal before us > > is > > in fact an improvement over the current state of affairs. > > > > Thanks for your help! > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Ben > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/1 > > _______________________________________________ > > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > > glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-user > > s > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
