Personally I think it’s helpful to have the proposal and rationale in the public discussion thread, because that gives non-committee members a chance to contribute. E.g. by supporting the recommendation or explaining why they think the recommendation is wrong.
Simon
From: ghc-steering-committee On Behalf Of Simon Marlow
Sent: 02 December 2019 10:13
To: Joachim Breitner
Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #265: Unlifted Datatypes, Shepherd: Simon Marlow
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 10:06, Joachim Breitner mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Dear Committee,
this is your secretary speaking:
Unlifed Datatypes
has been proposed by Sebastian Graf
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/265https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F265&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cea3e37d7fc99474f2b3208d77710332f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637108783771075544&sdata=CTn29iF7iqGfn%2FwdIJRGz%2Baqim2rQk53sCKBPrSny8Q%3D&reserved=0
https://github.com/sgraf812/ghc-proposals/blob/unlifted-data/proposals/0000-...https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fsgraf812%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Funlifted-data%2Fproposals%2F0000-unlifted-datatypes.rst&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cea3e37d7fc99474f2b3208d77710332f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637108783771085539&sdata=4ytC%2BHNl38mGCLWUrssLwvH71DbBVrEOhC8TLhoS1jY%3D&reserved=0
I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd, as the expert on low-level stuff.
Please reach consensus as described in
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-processhttps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%23committee-process&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cea3e37d7fc99474f2b3208d77710332f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637108783771085539&sdata=uRwxWiNwdquNYPfsHl4AESwX8pvrGhl6tAsFQb9WFR8%3D&reserved=0
I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the
proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out
debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with
you.
BTW, I just checked the proposal process documentation, and it says:
• * Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal. To do so, they
* post their recommendation, with a rationale, on the GitHub discussion thread,
* label the pull request as Pending committee review,
* re-title the proposal pull request, appending (under review) at the end. (This enables easy email filtering.)
* drop a short mail to the mailing list informing the committee that discussion has started.
which isn't exactly in line with the paragraph above. Shouldn't the first line be something like "post their recommendation, with a rationale, to the committee mailing list", and remove the final bullet?
Cheers
Simon
Thanks,
Joachim
--
Joachim Breitner
mail@joachim-breitner.demailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de
http://www.joachim-breitner.de/https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cea3e37d7fc99474f2b3208d77710332f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637108783771085539&sdata=NmVivDrYTY9W2P0cFMpSeAimgtwxViLKuZXp1iilw4E%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committeehttps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cea3e37d7fc99474f2b3208d77710332f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637108783771095532&sdata=hiXqsn8OTheQgjrd3vW%2BIhgITtVIOR7lpucgP3MoCuE%3D&reserved=0
