I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers mailing list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have GHC as their day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks struggling to figure out how to contribute. I don't mean to create more mail for Ben et al, but having an explicit "seek help here" direction is nice. And (at least for me) mailing a list for help feels more comfortable than emailing an individual.
Richard > On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> wrote: > > Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org > <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>> writes: > >> | If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers >> | for a new contributors patch >> | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new >> | contributors. >> >> Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to >> convey. Thanks for highlighting it. >> >> You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to >> produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a >> well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, >> ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches. To give a guarantee of high >> quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of >> volunteers working mostly in their spare time. >> >> Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario. But that's why I'm keen to >> avoid making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must >> discharge. >> >> I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here. Of course we >> welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they >> are lacking! >> >> So how about this >> - the author nominates reviewers >> - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he >> nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help >> - maintainers should make efforts to help >> > In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that > maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in > finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a > contributor is lost). > > Perhaps we should make this more explicit? > > Cheers, > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > <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
