As I was saying in my previous email (I'm making a second email to avoid confusion between the serious process question and the more casual musing), I'd noticed that a lot of the migration issues are due to the base library changing. Maybe the CLC can have stronger stability policies but the truth is: it's pretty hard. The details of Haskell makes so many things backward incompatible:

- It's incompatible to add a new instance for a type (somewhat mitigated by complaining about orphan instances, but orphan instances aren't always avoidable)

- It's incompatible to add a member to a type class without a default implementation

- It's incompatible to remove a member from a type class, even if the member is replaced by a simple function of the same name (see e.g. https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee/issues/3 ) in

- It's incompatible to add a function to a module because it may conflict with a function of the same name in another imported module (this isn't a theoretical concern: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2023-October/136389.html )

There may be things that Haskell-the-language can do to help Haskell-the-ecosystem cope with some of these problems. So there may still be value in analysing the ways in which base or other libraries broke their downstream, and see how we can act.

We can for instance consider the following issue of adding names: this isn't specific to Haskell in any way, but maybe it happens more to Haskel because we idiomatically import everything in the global namespace. This is one of the reasons why I care a lot about the Local Module proposal, by the way https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/283 .