sounds good to me, we can always tweak stuff as needed On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:04 AM Mario Blažević <blama...@ciktel.net> wrote:
> Four weeks having passed since the previous discussion with no > objections, I have now merged the content of the Haskell Report > > from https://github.com/haskell/haskell-report > > into https://github.com/haskell/rfcs > > > To remind everybody again, the point of this move was to enable > adding an actionable change to the report to every RFC. From this point > on, any proposal that passes the full process to becoming accepted can > update the report by the simple act of getting merged. > > In order to test this process, over a year ago I've picked and > submitted the least controversial RFC I could find, namely > https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/17. There has been no objection to > the proposal. In fact there has been no comment whatsoever, but I > suppose that's beside the point. So today I have moved the RFC to the > "Last Call" column (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/projects/1) as the > first and only proposal to gain that awesome status. > > It's not at all clear what should happen to the RFC between this > point and it getting merged, but I'm determined to test drive the > process with it. This is my plan: > > 1. I'm going to add update the report with a patch to the report > content, then > > 2. wait another two weeks for any objection before > > 3. moving the proposal from the Last Call to the Ready for Report > status, then > > 4. announce that the proposal is Ready for Report and > > 5. wait another two weeks for the full approval, then finally > > 6. merge the RFC. > > > The only flaw in my cunning plan above is defining what constitutes > "the full approval". The committee being rather ... disengaged and > scattered, there is little hope of getting 50% of votes from all its > members. The criteria of no raised objection, which I've used so far, > seems much too lax for a full approval. I think the only reasonable fair > criteria of success would be a public and unanimous approval by at least > N committee members. I have no idea what N should be, but I know that if > this test proposal can't garner N approvals, no proposal will ever pass > the hurdle. > > To make it plain, I suggest we take the number of committee members > that comment on the test proposal as the maximum bound of N. I do hope > max(N) > 1. > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime