Here is another example of a language change RFC process https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
Alan On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:45 AM Mark Lentczner <mark.lentcz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: >> >>> I've dealt with the IETF RFC process and the Python PEP process, and >>> both of them worked better than that. >> >> >> While both those are good examples of mostly working organizations >> shepherding foundational technical standard(s) along... there is one thing >> more important than their processes: Their stance. Both organizations have >> a very strong engineering discipline of keeping deployed things working >> without change. I don't think it is enough to simply model their process. >> > > Well, until Python 3, anyway. > > My goal wasn't to recreate the engineering discipline that deployed things > keep working without change as you upgrade the ecosystem, it's to provide a > mechanism so the community can more easily engage with the evolution of the > ecosystem. Hopefully this will make it easier for the community to move > things forward in a desirable manner. But it's a process, and leaves the > question of whether the desire is for more stability or a less stagnant > language up to the users of the process. > > I don't necessarily want to model the IETF or PEP processes. Those are a > starting point. I tried to abstract the initial points out enough that the > final result could be either one of them, or something totally unrelated > that's a better fit for the Haskell community. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > haskell-c...@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
