- ghc-steering-committee

GHC steering committee participation
by Atze Dijkstra 23 Oct '17

23 Oct '17

Dear committee members, as you may have noticed I have not actively participated in proposal reviewing. I can wrap this in a long or short story, but at the core lies lack of time combined with my role at Standard Chartered (SC) evolving in a direction less involved with GHC and Haskell language design/implementation than I originally thought it might be. Privately, outside of SC, I also see little time and energy left for committee activities. The work on proposals seems to have started actively and vigorously and I'd rather not be this silent non-contributing participant. I feel it is important to have somebody from what can likely be called the largest Haskell based industrial development group be in contact with and contribute to what by definition is an important tool for us. After some consultation with colleagues I found Roman Leshchinskiy (rleshchinskiy(a)gmail.com) to be willing to replace me in the committee. For most of the committee members I guess he is already known from the FP community so I leave further introduction up to himself. Within SC Roman is responsible for GHC related supporting infrastructure and as such is more than I am involved in and confronted with GHC intricacies, which places him at a better position to contribute to the GHC steering committee from an industrial perspective. I am aware that stepping down might cause inconvenience, but also feel that this better can be done now than later when the committee is already on farther on its way in dealing with proposals. I am also aware that it is not really up to me to decide what to do next after me stepping down, but I feel the proposed replacement by Roman is the best option from my perspective. all the best, Atze

7 11

Proposal: Type Fixity (#65), Consensus: accept, own language extension?
by Iavor Diatchki 20 Oct '17

20 Oct '17

Hello, my preference would be to add this to one of the existing extensions (either "explicit namespaces", or "type level operators"). Iavor On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:26 AM Joachim Breitner <mail(a)joachim-breitner.de> wrote: > Hi Committee, > > the discussion has ebbed down again. I observe that a clear majority is > in favor. I don’t think there is a need for a formal vote, so I will > proceed with this decision. > > Simon M brought up the next issue: Shall we require a separate language > extension for this, or can it go under the hood of > `ExplicitNamespaces`? > > So far Simon M expressed a strong preference for the former, while I am > inclined to prefer the latter, and would like to hear a few more > opinions on this detail (which certainly would set precedence for > future decisions). > > Richard brought up the idea of versioned language extensions; that idea > can certainly be investigated, but better independently. We have to > deal with this proposal with the tools we have. > > Greetings, > Joachim > > > Am Mittwoch, den 20.09.2017, 12:23 -0400 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > > Hi, > > > > the type fixity proposal > > (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65) > > was met with mixed reactions. > > > > * I recommended rejection and Manuel strongly agrees with me. > > * SPJ does not have strong opinions either way. > > * Richard is in favor, and Iavor agrees. > > > > > > Our process says “If consensus is elusive, then we vote, with the > > Simons retaining veto power.” It looks like this might be such a case. > > Should we go ahead and vote, or is more discussion likely to sway some > > of us? > > > > (I guess I can be swayed towards acceptance, especially if this > > proposal re-uses existing syntactic idioms from export lists with > > ExplicitNamespaces on.) > > > > Greetings, > > Joachim > > > > > > > > Am Sonntag, den 27.08.2017, 20:16 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > > > Dear Committee, > > > > > > Ryan Scott’s proposal to allow fixity declaration to explicitly target > > > values or types has been brought before us: > > > > https://github.com/RyanGlScott/ghc-proposals/blob/type-infix/0000-type-infi… > > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 > > > > > > I (the secretary) nominates myself as the shepherd, so I can right away > > > continue giving a recommendation. > > > > > > I propose to reject this proposal. The main reasons are: > > > * it is not clear if there is a real use case for this. Has anyone > > > ever complained about the status quo? > > > The proposal does not motivate the need for a change well enough. > > > (There is a related bug in TH, but that bug can probably simply be > > > fixed.) > > > * The status quo can be sold as a feature, rather than a short-coming. > > > Namely that an operator has a fixed fixity, no matter what namespace > > > it lives in. > > > This matches morally what other languages do: In Gallina, fixity > > > is assigned to names independent of their definition, AFAIK. > > > * There is a non-trivial implementation and education overhead, a > > > weight that is not pulled by the gains. > > > > > > If we’d design Haskell from scratch, my verdict might possibly be > > > different (but maybe we wouldn’t even allow types and values to share > > > names then…) > > > > > > > > > Please contradict me or indicate consensus by staying silent. > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Joachim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > > > ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org > > > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > > > > -- > > Joachim Breitner > > mail(a)joachim-breitner.de > > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > > ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > -- > Joachim Breitner > mail(a)joachim-breitner.de > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >

9 16

Proposal: Type Fixity (#65), Recommendation: accept under ExplicitNamespaces
by Joachim Breitner 19 Oct '17

19 Oct '17

Hi committee, the other thread on this proposal has veered off into a (very useful) meta-discussion. It seems that we will likely soon have a way to bless certain language extensions as stable, but this implies that ExplicitNamespaces it not (yet) one of those. In this light, I want to make progress on the proposal at hand, so I propose that we accept the proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 including the extension to WARNING pragmas etc. in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65#issuecomment-3349734… (which I will ask Ryan Scott to incorporate into the proposal) and under the agenda of expanding (completing) ExplicitNamespaces, rather than introducing a separate language extension. Is that fine with everyone? As always, I will take silence as a yes, and declare victory^Hconsensus after a week or so. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Fwd: Proposal: Type Fixity (#65), Consensus: accept, own language extension?
by Manuel M T Chakravarty 19 Oct '17

19 Oct '17

Mathieu asked me to relay this message to the committee. > Forwarded message > > From: "Boespflug, Mathieu" <m(a)tweag.io> > Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Type Fixity (#65), Consensus: accept, own language extension? > Date: 18. Oktober 2017 um 21:34:12 GMT+11 > To: Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak(a)justtesting.org> > Cc: Facundo Domínguez <facundo.dominguez(a)tweag.io> > > Hi Manuel, > > don't know if I'm allowed to post to this mailing list. So would > appreciate if you could forward the following experience report. > > Facundo and I worked on the -XStaticPointers extension. It has gone > through various improvements/generalizations for each new GHC release. > Eg originally, (static e) evaluated to something of type StaticPtr a, > whereas now it has type IsStatic s => s a, to allow for overloading > (static e) literals similarly to string literals. A corresponding > change was made to base. In the future there might be other changes, > in particular to finally make pointer lookup type safe (it's not, > currently), or to generalize IsStatic to a multi-param type class > (based on real-world experience). Should we have -XStaticPointers1, > -XStaticPointers2, etc for each new variant of this extension any time > we make any improvement to it (which have all been backwards > compatible so far)? That would be pretty onerous. > > Now, -XStaticPointers was added as an "experimental" extension, and so > in a strong sense we still have license to make all manner of changes > to that extension. But aren't they all? Isn't the very reason for > adding things as extensions first (rather than as part of the base > language) so that we can introduce new ideas and experiment with them > in the wild? And if the extension passes the test of widespread > usefulness then we etch in one of the Haskell Report stone tablets? > > Writing modern Haskell already entails a fair amount of bureaucracy > (among which language extension bureaucracy). Many different > variations of the same basic extension may well add to that > bureaucracy a fair bit. And what's more, be intimidating to beginners. > > Best, > -- > Mathieu Boespflug > Founder at http://tweag.io. > > > On 17 October 2017 at 12:30, Manuel M T Chakravarty > <chak(a)justtesting.org> wrote: >> I completely agree with Simon: this is an important question. >> >> I think, it would be good to have at least (1), but better (2). >> >> Why? Because Haskell’ really doesn’t get anywhere and in its absence the >> guarantees provided by GHC are the only language stability there is. Maybe >> it is unfair to put this burden on the compiler, instead of on a separate >> language specification, but that is how it is. >> >> Now, I reckon the main obstacle to (1) and (2) is that LANGUAGE extensions, >> when they appear first, are in flux, because they are often parts of >> experiments. Hence, I’d like to suggest that we might be able to lessen the >> tension between experimentation and stability by formally associating a >> ”stability” of one of ”alpha”, ”beta”, or ”stable” with each extension. >> >> As we all know, these stability annotations don’t work at all on Hackage as >> nobody ever moves their packages away from ”experimental”. Hence, I suggest >> that we do not make this the choice of the person who proposes an extension, >> but part of our process. There are a few options, which might be worth >> considering. >> >> For example, when a LANGUAGE extension is first proposed, it starts at >> ”alpha”. When latter a proposal is submitted to amend the extension, that >> amendment is approved by us only if it successfully argues that it improves >> the maturity of the extension such that it warrants ”beta” stability. And >> then, the same with ”stable” on the second amendment. Finally, ”stable” >> language extensions cannot be changed unless it is to fix a grave semantic >> error or similar. >> >> Instead (or in addition) of bumping stability on every new proposal >> involving the extension, we could also adopt a time (or release) based >> scheme. >> >> Cheers, >> Manuel >> >> PS: BTW, we are pushing for getting to 6 monthly release of GHC. This means >> that without any guarantees across versions, we would potentially increase >> variability, which would be bad. >> >> Simon Marlow <marlowsd(a)gmail.com>: >> >> The main reason I took a position on the issue of extension flags is to >> force the question: what should LANGUAGE mean? I think it's important to >> resolve this, to inform future decisions. Here are some options: >> >> 1. LANGUAGE fully specifies the grammar of the source file >> 2. LANGUAGE fully specifies the grammar and semantics of the source file >> 3. LANGUAGE tells the compiler what extensions are required, but otherwise >> provides no guarantees. The source file might not compile with a given >> version of GHC even if it supports all the extensions listed. In other >> words, LANGUAGE together with a GHC version range specifies the grammar and >> semantics of the source file. >> >> I think what we have right now is 3, because we change the meaning of >> extensions from version to version of GHC. There are advantages to 1 and 2: >> for example, if we had 1, then we could parse all of Hackage with >> haskell-src-exts (or at least identify the subset of source files that can >> be parsed via their LANGUAGE pragmas). If we had 2, then we could parse, >> rename and typecheck all of Hackage using haskell-src-exts, haskel-names, >> and haskell-type-exts. >> >> Perhaps we want to say that we can only *add* syntax to an existing >> extension, not change or remove it. This is a variant of 3 that requires >> only a lower bound on the GHC version required, not an upper bound, and it >> provides some of the benefits of 1 and 2: you just need a sufficiently >> recent version of haskell-src-exts et. al. >> >> Anyway, I mainly wanted to ensure that we're clear about what LANGUAGE >> means. If we believe the implications of 1 and 2 are too onerous (never >> changing extensions), so what we want is 3, so be it. >> >> Cheers >> Simon >> >> >> On 10 October 2017 at 03:54, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> my preference would be to add this to one of the existing extensions >>> (either "explicit namespaces", or "type level operators"). >>> >>> Iavor >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:26 AM Joachim Breitner >>> <mail(a)joachim-breitner.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Committee, >>>> >>>> the discussion has ebbed down again. I observe that a clear majority is >>>> in favor. I don’t think there is a need for a formal vote, so I will >>>> proceed with this decision. >>>> >>>> Simon M brought up the next issue: Shall we require a separate language >>>> extension for this, or can it go under the hood of >>>> `ExplicitNamespaces`? >>>> >>>> So far Simon M expressed a strong preference for the former, while I am >>>> inclined to prefer the latter, and would like to hear a few more >>>> opinions on this detail (which certainly would set precedence for >>>> future decisions). >>>> >>>> Richard brought up the idea of versioned language extensions; that idea >>>> can certainly be investigated, but better independently. We have to >>>> deal with this proposal with the tools we have. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Joachim >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 20.09.2017, 12:23 -0400 schrieb Joachim Breitner: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the type fixity proposal >>>>> (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65) >>>>> was met with mixed reactions. >>>>> >>>>> * I recommended rejection and Manuel strongly agrees with me. >>>>> * SPJ does not have strong opinions either way. >>>>> * Richard is in favor, and Iavor agrees. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our process says “If consensus is elusive, then we vote, with the >>>>> Simons retaining veto power.” It looks like this might be such a case. >>>>> Should we go ahead and vote, or is more discussion likely to sway some >>>>> of us? >>>>> >>>>> (I guess I can be swayed towards acceptance, especially if this >>>>> proposal re-uses existing syntactic idioms from export lists with >>>>> ExplicitNamespaces on.) >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Joachim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am Sonntag, den 27.08.2017, 20:16 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: >>>>>> Dear Committee, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ryan Scott’s proposal to allow fixity declaration to explicitly >>>>>> target >>>>>> values or types has been brought before us: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/RyanGlScott/ghc-proposals/blob/type-infix/0000-type-infi… >>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 >>>>>> >>>>>> I (the secretary) nominates myself as the shepherd, so I can right >>>>>> away >>>>>> continue giving a recommendation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I propose to reject this proposal. The main reasons are: >>>>>> * it is not clear if there is a real use case for this. Has anyone >>>>>> ever complained about the status quo? >>>>>> The proposal does not motivate the need for a change well enough. >>>>>> (There is a related bug in TH, but that bug can probably simply be >>>>>> fixed.) >>>>>> * The status quo can be sold as a feature, rather than a >>>>>> short-coming. >>>>>> Namely that an operator has a fixed fixity, no matter what >>>>>> namespace >>>>>> it lives in. >>>>>> This matches morally what other languages do: In Gallina, fixity >>>>>> is assigned to names independent of their definition, AFAIK. >>>>>> * There is a non-trivial implementation and education overhead, a >>>>>> weight that is not pulled by the gains. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we’d design Haskell from scratch, my verdict might possibly be >>>>>> different (but maybe we wouldn’t even allow types and values to share >>>>>> names then…) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please contradict me or indicate consensus by staying silent. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Joachim >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >>>>>> ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org >>>>>> >>>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joachim Breitner >>>>> mail(a)joachim-breitner.de >>>>> http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >>>>> ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org >>>>> >>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >>>> -- >>>> Joachim Breitner >>>> mail(a)joachim-breitner.de >>>> http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >>>> ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org >>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >>> ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org >>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org >> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-steering-committee mailing list >> ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org >> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee >>

1 1

Status
by Joachim Breitner 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

Hi, already a month since the last status! Since the last status update, one proposals was accepted. I have also moved NOUNPACK on function arguments <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46> to status “dormant”, until the proposal is updated to reflect recent discussion. Open at the moment are: Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Still waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Or Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation. Type fixity https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 Shepherd: Joachim Breitner Status: Not consensus, but majority for “accept”. Current discussion revolves around the question: Can this be included in ExplicitNamespaces, or does it require a separate language extension. The proposer also points out that explicit namespaces would also be useful for various pragmas. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+no… Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Proposal: Type Fixity (#65), Recommendation: Reject
by Joachim Breitner 08 Oct '17

08 Oct '17

Dear Committee, Ryan Scott’s proposal to allow fixity declaration to explicitly target values or types has been brought before us: https://github.com/RyanGlScott/ghc-proposals/blob/type-infix/0000-type-infi… https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 I (the secretary) nominates myself as the shepherd, so I can right away continue giving a recommendation. I propose to reject this proposal. The main reasons are: * it is not clear if there is a real use case for this. Has anyone ever complained about the status quo? The proposal does not motivate the need for a change well enough. (There is a related bug in TH, but that bug can probably simply be fixed.) * The status quo can be sold as a feature, rather than a short-coming. Namely that an operator has a fixed fixity, no matter what namespace it lives in. This matches morally what other languages do: In Gallina, fixity is assigned to names independent of their definition, AFAIK. * There is a non-trivial implementation and education overhead, a weight that is not pulled by the gains. If we’d design Haskell from scratch, my verdict might possibly be different (but maybe we wouldn’t even allow types and values to share names then…) Please contradict me or indicate consensus by staying silent. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de https://www.joachim-breitner.de/

8 19

Explicit foralls
by Simon Peyton Jones 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Friends I propose that we accept the Explicit Foralls proposal<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55>. * No one objected * It makes the language more expressive and uniform * It fixes a long-standing ticket #2600 The only bump in the road is the double forall in RULES (see the Examples in the proposal). But that's not Ricahrd's fault, and the proposed solution seems reasonable. I move to accept. Simon

3 3

Status
by Joachim Breitner 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

Hi, off the floor at the Haskell Symposium, the current status. I think many of us are here in Oxford. I guess we could try to meet in person and work off the backlog simply by quick real-live discussion – but maybe people have better things to do, and not all of us are here. So let’s just carry on as usual. Since the last status update one new proposals has come up for deliberation, and one proposals was accepted. Open at the moment are: NOUNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: There was more discussion on GitHub, and @treeowl will have a look if the proposal text is reflecting all that discussion. (Still waiting on @treeowl.) Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Still waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Explicit foralls proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55 Shepherd: Simon Peyton Jones Status: Simon recommended to accept this, and we see silent consensus emerging. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Or Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation. Type fixity https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 Shepherd: Joachim Breitner Status: Rejection recommended, but met with different opinions here. We need to either continue debating or *gasp* actually vote. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+no… Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please review: deriving for empty, Shepherd: Iavor Diatchki
by Joachim Breitner 28 Aug '17

28 Aug '17

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/63 was brought before the committee, by Ryan Scott. I propose Iavor Diachki as the Shepherd. Iavor, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de https://www.joachim-breitner.de/

6 9

Status
by Joachim Breitner 19 Aug '17

19 Aug '17

Hi, since the last status update two new proposals has come up for deliberation, and no proposals were decided. Open at the moment are: NOUNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: There was more discussion on GitHub, and @treeowl will have a look if the proposal text is reflecting all that discussion. Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Explicit foralls proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55 Shepherd: Simon Peyton Jones Status: Waiting for Simon to make a recommendation. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. deriving for empty https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/63 Shepherd: Iavor Diatchki Status: Iavor recommends acceptance. There seems to be consensus so far, under the condition of a dedicate LANGUAGE flag for this. Or Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Ap r+no%3Alabel Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

1 0