Hi, Am Sonntag, dem 09.07.2023 um 06:53 +0200 schrieb Vladislav:
So I agree with the general idea that it's important to get CLC involved, but for the sake of proposal authors and proposal implementors, this should be a committee-to-committee interaction, not a person-to-two-committees interaction
I agree, that would be desirable. Could we invite a CLC member to join the GHC committee? Either a full member if someone wants, or a special “observer” who represents the (procedural) interests of the CLC? A bit like the Holy Sea has a seat at the UN…
and acceptance of a proposal needs to be a single atomic operation instead of having kind-of-accepted documents floating around in the ghc-proposals repo.
That’s a bit harder because acceptance means different things in the two proposal systems: * The GHC proposal proposal (so far) says “This idea and design is good” but the implementation can still fail (too hard, technical issues, possibly even rejection of the GHC devs based on implementation isuses). * The CLC committee decides (usually) on almost ready-to-merge proposals, with an impact assessment and possibly patches to libraries out there. There is clearly an mismatch here that seems to be hard to resolve without changing at least one of the two processes (which are like that for good reasons). But at least we should try to make this transparent: Get a (non-binding) positive assessment of the CLC on proposals that touch base when accepting a GHC proposal, and communicate the need to get final approval when the implementation is done Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim- breitner.de/