Sounds good to me. It would be really helpful if the secretary could add a reminder about this policy when sending out the email assigning a shepherd, to ensure we don't forget.

Cheers
Simon

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 17:21, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Hi,

based on this discussion I am making a concrete proposal here:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/221

The main idea is that if the shepherd intends to reject the proposal,
they have to first discuss this with the authors, to give the authors a
chance to respond, tweak, or point out misunderstandings in the
shepherd’s perception.

So the process of accepting proposals is unchanged, and still on the
list, rejecting a proposal is now a two step process: the shepherd
discusses it with the authors on GitHub (and anyone else interested, of
course), and then there is a shorter discussion on the mailinglist,
with hopefully all facts clarified.

This does not move all discussion to Github yet, so it is the smaller
change, in a way. But of course committee members are encouraged to
join GitHub discussions early, especially if they are unhappy with a
proposal.


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