Thank you both for your responses.

@Simon: I like explicitly stating who has to take the next action a lot. I think the current phrasing is not quite right though -

in particular, it now says "The committee secretary appoints a committee member as shepherd, which moves the proposal to the Pending committtee review state.", but I would say appointing a shepherd moves the proposal into the Pending shepherd recommendation state.

If you want, I can just make the changes I think should be made (I haven't done so yet in case I'm misunderstanding something), but essentially

- I would shuffle a couple of the labels around to fix the above

- I would insert a step between 4 and 5 that consists of the shepherd giving feedback and deciding on their recommendation, before the actual committee review begins.

Jakob

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:31 PM Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Jakob is right.

I have updated https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/README.rst to be much more explicit about who is responsible for the next action. 

Does that help?   Further drafting changes welcome

Simon

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 18:39, Malte Ott <malte.ott@maralorn.de> wrote:

If your handling was wrong, then I have certainly erred in the same way.

I can see where VitWWs interpretation comes from, but that interpretation has
never been formalized anywhere.

I think having labels to track of whom the next action is required no matter the
size of that action makes sense to me.

Our documentation only says this on the topic:

> Eventually, the committee rejects a proposal (label: Rejected), or passes it
> back to the author for review (label: Needs revision), or accepts it (label:
> Accepted).

It is true that this could be interpreted a bit more final than you intended in
this case, but I don’t think it excludes attaching that label for smaller changes.

Especially, nothing in the written process documentation says that the shepherd
ceases to be the sheperd when revisions are required. Also, as we recently
discussed a proposal can have a sheperd before the shepherd recommendation
phase.

Best,
Malte

On 2024-12-06 18:38, Jakob Brünker wrote:
>    Hi all,
>
>    I've so far essentially been using the "Needs revision" label to
>    indicate that the next concrete step has to be taken by the author,
>    regardless of how big the changes I suggest are.
>    After I did this yesterday, VitWW [1]commented, essentially saying it's
>    only intended for cases where major rewrites are required.
>
>    From what I can tell, in past proposals, if relatively minor changes
>    came up during the shepherding phase, sometimes "Needs revision" was
>    used, and sometimes not.
>
>    Is there a guideline I should follow, or that you tend to follow here?
>
>    Jakob
>
> References
>
>    1. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/621#issuecomment-2523299848

> _______________________________________________
> 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