Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Redid our documentation

This sounds good to me, if everyone is comfortable with it. On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi Manuel,

just to make sure I get what you are saying, are you suggesting this approach?

* (At least) one committee member, let’s call him the secretary, promises to watch the GitHub repository close enough. * When an author wants to bring a proposal before the committe, he adds a comment to the a pull request, briefly summarizing the major points raised during the discussion period and stating their belief that the proposal is ready for review.. * The secretary notices that, labels the proposal as “Pending committee review” and notifies the committee.

This would be slightly more convenient for the submitters, and slightly more work for the committee. But I guess it makes sense, and we can try this way.

Simon already shoved me towards picking up the “secretary” hat, to reduce load on Ben. Ben, unless you protest, I’ll take over this role.

I updated https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/wip/docs-restructuring accordingly

Greetings, Joachim

Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 10:16 +1100 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:

...

Joachim’s suggestion makes sense to me, but I also agree with Chris that if we can use GitHub notifications, that would be more flexible. (Everybody who wants can turn the notifications into emails for just themselves in their own GitHub settings.)

...

Christopher Allen :

Label changes are pretty under the radar, which is why my original suggestion included the project board.

Messages to the mailing list could work, but I'd prefer we kept this for our discussions and figure out notifications on Github.

IIRC, we were supposed to assign helpers to the issues. My prior assumption had been that the proposer would cc them in the Github issue. The helper would then notify the broader committee on the mailing list.

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

...

On Feb 25, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

* 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.)

While I have not re-read the documentation changes, this tweak seems sensible to me. I was always skeptical of having us react simply to a label change without an email.

Thanks for doing this!

Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-co mmittee

-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-comm ittee

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-commit tee -- 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

-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com