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 (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.
This also addresses the question about labels: if each proposal has a
shepherd, then the shepherd will notice when the proposer adds a comment to
the PR requesting review, and can formally start the process with the rest
of the committee.
Cheers
Simon
On 26 February 2017 at 04:26, Joachim Breitner
[I sent this mail from Monday to the wrong address, second try]
Hi,
there was a bit confusion about our documentation, so with SPJ’s blessing I went ahead and restructured it a bit. For now, this is only on a branch and not live yet:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/wip/docs-restructur ing
Note that it starts with a concise timeline of a proposal, and from there has links to section answering specific questions, within the same file. What was three files before (README, process, committee) is now all in here (with the exception of the “detailed instructions” for the Github-novice, which is in a separate file). This should make it easier for everyone involved to know who has to do what when.
Our process is, however, flawed: We ask authors to set labels (“Under Discussion” and “Under Committee Review”), but they do not have permissions to do so. So this does not quite work.
So I suggest the following change:
* What was “Under Discussion” is now simply any PR that does not have any other label. This way, when opening discussion, nothing concrete has to be done. Which is easier. (GitHub allows to list all PRs that have no label, so there is no loss in functionality here.)
* When the author wants to submit the PR, he sends a mail to this mailinglist (is this set up to accept mails from non-subscribers?) and it its the task of the shephard to set the label to indicate that that the committee has accepted to review the proposal. (At this point, the shephard could for example set the `Out-of-scope` label instead.)
If there are no complains I will adjust the docs-restructuring branch accordingly and then move that to master.
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