Re: Proposal process status

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:38 -0400, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Yuras Shumovich > > wrote: > > > > It is hopeless. Haskell2020 will not include TemplateHaskell, > > GADTs, > > etc. > > Why do you say this? I don't think this is a forgone

Re: Proposal process status

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Yuras Shumovich wrote: > > It is hopeless. Haskell2020 will not include TemplateHaskell, GADTs, > etc. Why do you say this? I don't think this is a forgone conclusion. I'd love to see these standardized. My own 2¢ on these are that we can

Re: Proposal process status

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:25 -0400, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Yuras Shumovich > > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately Haskell *is* implementation-defined language. You > > can't > > compile any nontrivial package from Hackage using Haskell2010

Re: Proposal process status

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Yuras Shumovich wrote: > > Unfortunately Haskell *is* implementation-defined language. You can't > compile any nontrivial package from Hackage using Haskell2010 GHC. Sadly, I agree with this statement. And I think this is what we're trying

Re: Proposal process status

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 10:32 -0400, Gershom B wrote: > On July 21, 2016 at 8:51:15 AM, Yuras Shumovich (shumovi...@gmail.com > ) wrote: > > > > I think it is what the process should change. It makes sense to > > have > > two committees only if we have multiple language implementations, > > but > >

Re: Proposal process status

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Gershom B wrote: > > On July 21, 2016 at 8:51:15 AM, Yuras Shumovich (shumovi...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> It makes sense to have >> two committees only if we have multiple language implementations, but >> it is not the case. > I disagree. By

Re: Proposal process status

On July 21, 2016 at 8:51:15 AM, Yuras Shumovich (shumovi...@gmail.com) wrote: > > I think it is what the process should change. It makes sense to have > two committees only if we have multiple language implementations, but > it is not the case. Prime committee may accept or reject e.g. GADTs, >

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I'm replying to this to clarify that I object to GitHub in order to have a clear conscience, not because I think GitHub is a "bad tool". Attempting to shoot down my arguments against GitHub with arguments for convenience or it being a "a good tool",

Re: Proposal process status

On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 18:37 +0200, Ben Gamari wrote: > Yuras Shumovich writes: > > > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment > > here: > > > Thanks for your comments Yuras! > > > >   * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the >

Re: Proposal process status

2016-07-20 23:16 GMT+02:00 Adam Foltzer : > [...] I'll quote the Motivations section: > >1. Higher than necessary barrier-to-entry. > > For the purposes of this proposal, whether we would prefer a competing > alternative is secondary to the fact that a Github account has

Re: Proposal process status

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Ben Gamari wrote: > Yuras Shumovich > writes: > > > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: > > > Thanks for your comments Yuras! > > >> * Do you feel the proposed process is

Re: Proposal process status

Jack Hill writes: > Hi all, > > I'm a bit of an outsider here as I'm not involved in GHC development (but > I am interested in how it goes). I've struggled with my own desire to > avoid using proprietary software like GitHub, and the desire to work with > those who favor

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 23:41, Jack Hill wrote: > Would the barrier to entry to a non-GitHub system be reduced by > using GitHub for user authentication/accounts For what it's worth, GitLab supports this[0]. You can also use Twitter, or whatever. [0]

Re: Proposal process status

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Adam Foltzer wrote: 1. Higher than necessary barrier-to-entry. For the purposes of this proposal, whether we would prefer a competing alternative is secondary to the fact that a Github account has become a very low common denominator for people wishing to participate in

Re: Proposal process status

I really appreciate you putting so much work into this. It is very important, and I believe could do much to increase awareness of and participation in these processes. I've left most of my thoughts as line comments on the proposal document, but since discussion of platform choice is taking place

Re: Proposal process status

Alexander Berntsen writes: > On 20/07/16 19:04, Ben Gamari wrote: >> I know, it's rather frustrating. I also have fairly strong feelings >> about open-source purity, but in this case I just don't see any >> way to improve the current situation under this constraint. > > I

Re: Proposal process status

> 20 juli 2016 kl. 19:38 skrev amin...@gmail.com: > > > >> El 20 jul 2016, a las 12:45, Ben Gamari escribió: >> >> Iavor Diatchki writes: >> >>> Hello Ben, >>> >>> I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it >>> got

Re: Proposal process status

> El 20 jul 2016, a las 12:45, Ben Gamari escribió: > > Iavor Diatchki writes: > >> Hello Ben, >> >> I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it >> got buried among the rest of the e-mails. > Indeed it seems that way.

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 19:04, Ben Gamari wrote: > I know, it's rather frustrating. I also have fairly strong feelings > about open-source purity, but in this case I just don't see any > way to improve the current situation under this constraint. I don't think

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 19:00, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > While I indeed sympathize with your desire to avoid proprietary, > closed software, I'd like to point out that avoiding GitHub > because it's closed has a real cost I don't value those points over my

Re: Proposal process status

Alexander Berntsen writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 20/07/16 11:36, Ben Gamari wrote: >> * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if >> anything? > No GitHub. In order to fully utilise GitHub, one needs to run >

Re: Proposal process status

> On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > On 20/07/16 11:36, Ben Gamari wrote: >> * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if >> anything? > No GitHub. In order to fully utilise GitHub, one needs to run > proprietary programs.

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 11:36, Ben Gamari wrote: > * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if > anything? No GitHub. In order to fully utilise GitHub, one needs to run proprietary programs. Additionally, GitHub is proprietary software

Re: Proposal process status

Iavor Diatchki writes: > Hello Ben, > > I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it > got buried among the rest of the e-mails. > Indeed it seems that way. Sorry about that! > I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to

Re: Proposal process status

Yuras Shumovich writes: > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: > Thanks for your comments Yuras! >>   * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the >> status quo? > > Yes, definitely. The existing process is too vague, so

Re: Proposal process status

Hello Ben, I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it got buried among the rest of the e-mails. I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how well it will work in practice until we try it, and we should be ready to change it if needs be.

Re: Proposal process status

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 >

Re: Proposal process status

> > * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if > anything? > *Simon Peyton Jones as Benevolent Dictator For Life (BDFL)* If the BDFL had made a simple YES/NO decision on ShortImports [1] and ArgumentDo [2], we wouldn't be here talking about process proposals, Anthony

Proposal process status

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