Joachim suggests that a prerequisite for submitting a proposal to the committee is that someone is offering to implement it.
- This would avoid us spending precious cycles debating a proposal that no one is going to implement.
- An offer of implementation cannot be binding, so it is something of a soft constraint. (An author could cynically volunteer themselves, without having any intention of carrying through, but we expect better of the Haskell community.)
- We should stress that nothing stops someone creating a proposal, making a PR, and debating it with the community, all without an implementor. Only when it is submitted to the committee for review and approval is an implementor required.
- Joachim suggests that this replaces the (never used) "Endorsements" section.
I wonder if a proposal that is accepted but not implemented (for whatever reason) should be un-accepted after, say, a year. That would provide some incentive to get on with it; and the language context might be different by then.
I suggest that we debate the principle first. I have a few word-smithing suggestions, but principles first!
On balance I recommend acceptance, with the above nuances clarified.
Simon