June 2019 - ghc-steering-committee

Please review #160: NoToplevelFieldSelectors, Shepherd: Eric
by Joachim Breitner 23 Aug '19

23 Aug '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: NoToplevelFieldSelectors have been proposed by Simon Hafner https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/160 https://github.com/reactormonk/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0000-no-… I propose Eric as the Shepherd, because I know what you did last summer (namely look at that propsoal). Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

2 2

Please review #228: Function result type signatures, Shepherd: Simon PJ
by Joachim Breitner 16 Jul '19

16 Jul '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Function result type signatures have been proposed by Vladislav Zavialov https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/228 https://github.com/int-index/ghc-proposals/blob/fn-res-sig/proposals/0000-f… I propose Simon PJ as the Shepherd, for having commented on it before. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 1

Status
by Joachim Breitner 09 Jul '19

09 Jul '19

Dear committee, has it really been three months since the last status? Time flies like an arrow (and fruit flies like banana). Some proposals are stalled on individual members of the committee who have become much less active recently (Manuel, Ben, partly Chris). I encourage you (and everyone else of course) to realistically assess your commitment, and – if you think that that’s in the best interest of all involved – indicate if we should start to find new members with fresh engery. Anyways, quite a few things have happened: * were asked to review these proposals: #167 Deprecated Entities (shepherd: Vitaly) #203 PtrRep (shepherd: SPJ) #176 SCC Parsing (shepherd: Simon M) #193 forall keyword (shepherd: Eric) #155 Type Vars in Lambdas (shepherd: Iavor) #209 Levity polymorphic lift (shepherd: Eric) #210 -Wredundand-minimal-methods (shepherd: me) #190 module qualified syntax (shepherd: Simon M) #207 type variables in quotations (shepherd: Richard) #195 newtype Q (shepherd: Vitaly) #204 nested brackets (shepherd: Iavor) #179 Printing of foralls (shepherd: me) #177 constrained type families (shepherd: Vitaly) * got a recommendation from shepherds about: #193 forall keyword (rec: acccept) #176 SCC Parsing (rec: accept) #210 -Wredundand-minimal-methods (rec: accept) #209 Levity polymorphic lift (rec: accept) #207 type variables in quotations (rec: reject) #167 Deprecated Entities (rec: accept) #195 newtype Q (rec: accept) #190 module qualified syntax (rec: accept) #204 nested brackets (rec: shelve) #179 Printing of foralls (rec: acccept) #203 PtrRep (rec: accept) * decided about the following proposals #158 Add setField to HasField (accept) #28 Bundling patterns with type synonyms (reject) #167 Deprecated Entities (reject) #193 forall keyword (acccept) #207 type variables in quotations (reject) #195 newtype Q (needs revision) #210 -Wredundand-minimal-methods (accept) #203 PtrRep (accept) #176 SCC Parsing (accept) We currently have to act on the following 8 proposals, up two since the last status: Levity polymorphic lift https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/209 Shepherd: Eric Status: To be accepted after minor tweaks by the authors Module qualified syntax https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/190 Shepherd: Simon M Status: To be accepted after we decide on the pragma name Tweak printing of foralls https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/179 Shepherd: me Status: Ongoing discussion (Iavor had questions) Simple constrained type families https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/177 Shepherd: Vitaly Status: Waiting for Vitaly to make a recommendation Binding type variables in lambda expressions https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/155 Shepherd: Iavor Status: Discussion ongoing, Iavor did not make an official recommendation Type annotated quoters https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Manuel? Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Still waiting for recommendation. This is pretty old! ExtraCommas https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: accept Status: Met with some reservation. Chris, please pick this up again. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

9 22

Request for Nominations to the GHC Steering Committee
by Joachim Breitner 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

Dear Haskell community, the GHC Steering committee is seeking nominations for two or three new member. The committee scrutinizes, nitpicks, improves, weights and eventually accepts or rejects proposals that extend or change the language supported by GHC and other (public-facing) aspects of GHC. Our processes are described at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals which is also the GitHub repository where proposals are proposed. We are looking for a member who has the ability * to understand such language extension proposals, * to find holes and missing corner cases in the specifications, * foresee the interaction with other language features and specifications, * comment constructively and improve the proposals, * judge the cost/benefit ratio and * finally come to a justifiable conclusion. We look for committee members who have some of these properties: * have substantial experience in writing Haskell applications or libraries, which they can use to inform judgements about the utility or otherwise of proposed features, * have made active contributions to the Haskell community, for some time, * have expertise in language design and implementation, in either Haskell or related languages, which they can share with us. The committee’s work requires a small, but non-trivial amount of time, especially when you are assigned a proposal for shepherding. We estimate the workload to be around 2 hours per week, and our process works best if members usually respond to technical emails within 1-2 weeks (within days is even better). Please keep that in mind if your email inbox is already overflowing. The GHC developers themselves are already well represented already. We seek Haskell _users_ more than GHC hackers. There is no shortage of people who are eager to get fancy new features into the language, both in the committee and the wider community. But each new feature imposes a cost, to implement, to learn, (particularly) through its unexpected interaction with other features. We need to strike a balance, one that encourages innovation (as GHC always has) while still making Haskell attractive for real-world production use and for teaching. We therefore explicitly invite “conservative” members of the community to join the committee. To make a nomination, please send an email to me (as the committee secretary) at mail(a)joachim-breitner.de until June 23th. I will distribute the nominations among the committee, and we will keep the nominations and our deliberations private. We explicitly encourage self-nominations. You can nominate others, but please obtain their explicit consent to do so. (We don’t want to choose someone who turns out to be unable to serve.) On behalf of the committee, Joachim Breitner -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 3

Please review #232: Ambiguous Type pragma, Shepherd: Richard
by Joachim Breitner 30 Jun '19

30 Jun '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Ambiguous Type pragma has been proposed by AntC2 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232 https://github.com/AntC2/ghc-proposals/blob/patch-2/proposals/AmbiguousType… I propose Richard as the Shepherd. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please vote on ExtraCommas
by Joachim Breitner 27 Jun '19

27 Jun '19

Dear Committee, because the discussion wasn’t leading anywhere anymore, we have called a vote on the ExtraCommas proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Please cast your vote! I will close the vote when all of us have voted, or after Sunday (June 26, one week of voting). (It seems that the general public also felt compelled to vote, and out of curiosity, I’ll tally these votes as well. I’m curious how representative we are.) Going into the future, we will have to decide if we want to do votes on GitHub or better here on the mailing list. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 2

Discussion on #214, Namespace specifiers
by Iavor Diatchki 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Hello, let's have a discussion about proposal #214, Namespace specifiers. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214 I believe our new process is to have the discussion on Github, so please share your thoughts over there. I am a bit unclear about the steps in the new process (even though I voted for it :-), but as the shepherd I think I am supposed to make an initial? recommendation. If so, at the moment I am leaning towards a "reject": I do think that the proposal has identified a valid area for improvement, but I don't quite like the currently proposed solution---I wrote some comments on GIthub as to why. Obviously, that's just my opinion, and the discussion would benefit from more input from the committee. Cheers, -Iavor

2 2

Discussion on #216, LocalDo
by Joachim Breitner 16 Jun '19

16 Jun '19

Hello, as I explained in the post at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/216#issuecomment-499785… I recommend accepting the Local Do proposal. Please join the discussion there. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 1

Please review #231: Record with syntax, Shepherd: Simon Marlow
by Joachim Breitner 14 Jun '19

14 Jun '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Record `with` syntax has been proposed by Rohan Jacob-Rao https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 https://github.com/rohanjr/ghc-proposals/blob/record-with-syntax/proposals/… I propose Simon as the Shepherd, because I everyone else has something on their plate. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

2 1

Status
by Joachim Breitner 11 Jun '19

11 Jun '19

Dear committee, let’s see what happened in the last months. I still wonder if we should do another call for new members, to get fresh momentum here. Simons, as Chairs, what do you think? This has happened since the last status: * Triggered by input from Matthew Pickering, we refined our proposal; discussions are now supposed to be happening on GitHub and shepherd talk to authors before proposing to reject. The mail I just sent had an incomplete list of proposals that I relabeled “Pending shepherd recommendation”. See below for the full list. Dear shepherd (Iavor, Vitaly, Ben, Manuel), please follow the new process for the open proposals listed below. * were asked to review these proposals: #213 Namespace specifiers (Shepherd: Iavor) #194 Updated partial type signatures (Shepherd: Vitaly) * got a recommendation from shepherds about: - none - * returned for revision by shepherd #177 Simple constrained type families * decided about the following proposals #209 Levity-polymorphic Lift (accept) #179 Printing of foralls (accept) #190 Module qualified syntax (accept) #155 Ty vars in lambdas (accept) We currently have to act on the following 5 proposals, 3 down since last stats: Namespace Specifiers https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214 Shepherd: Iavor Status: Waiting for Iavor to make a recommendation. Updated partial type signatures https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/194 Shepherd: Vitaly Status: Waiting for Vitaly to make a recommendation. Type annotated quoters https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Manuel? Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Ben, this is pretty old! ExtraCommas https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: accept Status: More discussion happened, no clear consensus emerging. Maybe we should just do do a vote (with fine-grained ranked options)? Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

4 8