I think that the ability to discuss every proposed extension within the
broad community may become not a very effective thing actually. It seems
that many extensions could become controversial under Alternative 2 thus
making the overall result too shallow. By the way, does anyone expect abuse
of the process?
I prefer Alternative 1 for this reason though organizing a place for an
in-committee debate in the spirit of Alternative 2 looks appealing.
Regards,
Vitaly
ср, 4 нояб. 2020 г. в 17:39, Richard Eisenberg
As the proponent for Alternative 2: the main goal of Alternative 2 is to create an organized place for debating individual extensions. In a perfect world, I'd prefer Alternative 1, for its simplicity. However, I have a hard time believing we'll get through this process without significant debate, and I worry that Alternative 1 provides no organization for that debate, and so it will end up sprawling over other discussions.
I'm not wedded to any details in Alternative 2, just advocating for some imposed organization.
Thanks, Richard
On Nov 4, 2020, at 8:38 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee < ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org> wrote:
Friends
We are asked to consider Proposal 371: the GHC 20xx process https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/372
We have discussed it quite a bit already and I recommend acceptance.
It includes “Alternative1” and “Alternative2” at one point. I found Alternative 2 hard to parse (seemed very process-heavy), so I favour Alternative 1 which seemed simpler.
Please respond within the next week or two, either on the discussion thread, or to this email.
Thanks
Simon
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee