Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #517: Require implementors before proposal submission, Shepherd: Simon PJ

Consider it from this perspective, when we accept a proposal we are *committing* GHC to accept a patch implementing it (assuming it passes code review etc). I think there’s also a general expectation that GHC *will* implement all accepted proposals in a timely manner.

I don't think so! We have always said that accepting a proposal places *no* obligation on the GHC team to implement it. I think the point of this proposal is to make it a bit clearer that it is the author's responsibility to corral resources (from volunteers, from the HF, from a company) to implement their proposal. That said, I think it should be fine for an author to create a PR and initiate discussion on a proposal way before they have an implementor. It's just that when they want to submit to the committee (which *does* have an obligation to review and decide, a process that has costs), at that point they should line up an plausible implementor so that we don't spend time reviewing proposals that are unlikely to get implemented. But a proposal could get to an advanced stage without that final step. Simon Simon On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 12:58, Eric Seidel wrote:

It is similar, but I think my framing puts the pebble in the right shoe.

Consider it from this perspective, when we accept a proposal we are *committing* GHC to accept a patch implementing it (assuming it passes code review etc). I think there’s also a general expectation that GHC *will* implement all accepted proposals in a timely manner. That’s why we’re having the present discussion.

The question is whose responsibility is it to ensure implementation? In principle it should be GHC’s responsibility, but GHC is largely a volunteer-driven project and it’s not fair to expect a bunch of unpaid labor from the GHC devs.

But the Haskell community at large has an interest in a fully-featured GHC. And the Haskell Foundation represents these interests and has funding to realize them. So what I’m suggesting is that we could partner with the Foundation to establish a bounty or grant program to implement proposals that do not already have a committed implementer.

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Aug 24, 2022, at 06:42, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi,

...

Am Dienstag, dem 23.08.2022 um 14:01 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel: Perhaps rather than requiring an implementor to volunteer, we should lean more on groups like the Haskell Foundation to *fund the implementation of proposals*?

isn’t that the same thing? If the Haskell Foundation (or someone else) says “we’ll fund all accepted proposal”, then my proposed requirement would be vacuously satisfied.

Personally, though, I prefer if this committee does not also have to worry about resource allocation for the HF…

Nor do I think that the HF should fund “random good ideas” – there will always be more good ideas than resources to implement them.

Cheers, Joachim

-- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

_______________________________________________ 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