Many proposals never seem to reach the state where they are actually submitted for review, e.g. due to negative feedback in the discussion phase. No point in wasting resources on these.
Seems like a good thing to me as well, I agree.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 10:48 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow:
I like the new organisation. One functional difference I noticed: the new description says that we assign a shepherd when the proposal starts the review process, but under the existing process a shepherd is assigned to each proposal when the PR is created
I don’t think this is true. The first mention of Shephard is after the bullet point “Once the committee has been notified that a proposal is ready for decision”.
(but I guess we haven't been sticking to this?). Ideally I think we'd assign shepherds earlier because it will streamline the review process: the shepherd will spot things that should be clarified or addressed before the rest of the committee gets involved. I think it's likely to be a better use of resources.
I doubt it. Many proposals never seem to reach the state where they are actually submitted for review, e.g. due to negative feedback in the discussion phase. No point in wasting resources on these.
Anyways, we can refine the process later. I will merge the current documentation now, including declaring me the Secretary.
Greetings, Joachim
-- -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com