July 2019 - ghc-steering-committee

Please review #220: QualifiedImports, Shepherd: Simon M
by Joachim Breitner 20 Sep '19

20 Sep '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: QualifiedImports has been proposed by Arnaud Spiwack and Guillaume Bouchard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/220 https://github.com/tweag/ghc-proposals/blob/qualified-import/proposals/0000… I propose Simon M 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/

7 11

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

Recommendation made for {-# AMBIGUOUS #-}, #232
by Richard Eisenberg 17 Aug '19

17 Aug '19

Hi all, I have made my recommendation for #232 here: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232#issuecomment-508803… <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232#issuecomment-508803…> Thanks, Richard

1 1

Set reminders on Github
by Joachim Breitner 06 Aug '19

06 Aug '19

Dear Committe, I have enabled a “reminder bot” on our GitHub repository. You can set reminders by writing /remind me to close discussion next week or /remind @isovector to accept this on July 29 and the bot will confirm that it understood what you wrote, and then, well, remind you about it. You can use this for things like “if this stays silent, I will do X in Y days”. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

3 5

Haskell Implementors Working: Looking for Panelists
by Niki Vazou 05 Aug '19

05 Aug '19

Hello, Haskell Implementors Workshop 2019 will be having a 45 min panel discussion (17.15-18.00 on Fri 23th August). The goal is to have panelists that represent the following committees: - ghc steering committee - Devops committee - core libraries committee - Haskell' committee - Haskell.org committee - Haskell Symposium & HiW steering committee Let me know if you - want like to be in the panel - if there are issues you want to raise in the panel discussion. Best, Niki Chair of HiW'19

4 4

Type annotated quoters (#125) --- recommendation: accept
by Sandy Maguire 01 Aug '19

01 Aug '19

Hi all, Proposal 125 is on the topic of making quasiquoters which annotate the type of expression they produce. For example: qq :: TQuasiQuoter Int which would work when used via foo :: Int foo = [qq|| blah ||] but would be a type error (even before expanding the splice) in the context of bar :: String bar = [qq|| blah ||] I'm in favor of this proposal. It's small, a natural extension to typed expressions+quasiquoters, and solves the very real problem of statically verifying literals at compile time. The proposal is here: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 and my recommendation is: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125#issuecomment-510612… I have recommend a syntactic change that is *not* present in the original proposal text. It seems unfair to make the proposer jump through more hoops after a year of inactivity on this proposal. As usual, silence will be considered assent! Best, Sandy

3 3

committee deliberation discussions
by Richard Eisenberg 18 Jul '19

18 Jul '19

Hi committee, A few months ago, we decided to move final proposal deliberations to GitHub, knowing that this might not work. I'd like to claim: it's not working. Here is why: * Though I've configured my mail reader to flag messages that invite the committee to deliberate (and this works), later messages in the thread are not thus flagged (and I don't know how I would do so), and so I have to remember the proposals under deliberation manually. This is error-prone. * The requests to the community to be quiet during deliberation are not working. Some participants miss that message (it can be quite far up the thread!) and then participate. Others doubtless have something to say, but refrain... and then possibly get annoyed at those who don't heed the request. * Though I haven't collected data, my guess is that there has been less involvement from the committee in these discussions than the ones we had previously. I thus propose we move deliberations back to this list. However, some good has come from all this, so I wish to further propose: * Shepherds still post to the GitHub thread before making a "reject" recommendation. Then the shepherd and the author can work out their differences. * After emailing their recommendation, shepherds post a link to the email archive of the recommendation. This makes the deliberation more transparently a public phenomenon, while still focusing our (committee members') inboxes and our attention. The shepherd may also cross-post thoughts to the GitHub trail seeking more public or author feedback, if that is warranted. Alternatively, we can set up the mailing list so that non-member posts are moderated instead of auto-rejected. The owner of the list (who is that, anyway?) could then approve posts from proposal authors. This is an annoying manual step, but I don't think it will be burdensome in practice. What do we think? I'm happy to post a diff to the process descriptor if there is support. Richard

8 9

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 14 Jul '19

14 Jul '19

Dear committee, looks like my intuitive Status update cadence has become two months, rather than one. Oh well. This has happened since the last status, we * have new members. Welcome Sandy and Arnaud. Also thanks to Ben and Manuel. * were asked to review these proposals: #228 Function result type signatures (Shepherd: Simon PJ) #229 Parsing of (~) etc. (Shepherd: Richard) #160 NoToplevelFieldSelectors (Shepherd: Eric) #231 Record with syntax (Shepherd: Simon M.) #232 Ambiguous Type pragma (Shepherd: Richard) #220 QualifiedImports (Shepherd: Simon M) #240 Compile with threaded RTS (Shepherd: Simon M) * have a recommendation form the shepherd about: #229 Parsing of (~) etc. (rec: accept) #160 NoToplevelFieldSelectors (rec: accept) #231 Record with syntax (rec: accept) #220 QualifiedImports (rec: reject) #232 Ambiguous Type pragma (rec: accept) #115 Provenance-Qualified Package Imports (rec: accept) * decided about the following proposals #214 Namespace specifiers (needs revision) #216 Local Do (needs revision) #87 ExtraCommas (accepted a specific variant after voting) We currently have to act on the following 10 proposals, 5 up since last stats. Please check if any needs your action, especially as a shepherd: Compile with threaded RTS Shepherd: Simon M. Status: Acceptance imminent. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/240 {-# AMBIGUOUS #-} Shepherd: Richard Status: Acceptance recommended, discussion ongoing https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232 Record with syntax Shepherd: Simon M. Status: Acceptance recommended, but no consensus https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 Simplified parsing of (~) and (!) Shepherd: Richard Status: Acceptance recommended, but no consensus https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/229 Function result type signatures Shepherd: Simon PJ Status: Acceptance imminent. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/228 Qualified Imports Shepherd: Simon M. Status: Waiting for Simon to officially make a recommendation. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/220 Updated partial type signatures Shepherd: Vitaly Status: Waiting for Vitaly to make a recommendation. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/194 NoFieldSelectors Shepherd: Eric Status: Acceptance imminent, I believe https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/160 Type annotated quoters Shepherd: Sandy Status: Acceptance recommended, Simon PJ discovered some nits. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 Provenance-Qualified Package Imports Shepherd: Arnaud Status: Acceptance recommended. Mostly agreed on. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Committee discussion: #115 Provenance-Qualified Package Imports
by Spiwack, Arnaud 12 Jul '19

12 Jul '19

Dear all, As the shepherd for #115, I've made a recommendation and started the committee discussion: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115

1 0