
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