Having a defined term length makes sense, and according to GitHub[1] we already have that.

Members have terms of 3, 4, and 5 years.

Though I don't recall being given a specific term length when I joined :) Are you suggesting that, beyond well-defined term lengths, we should also have a limit on the number of terms a member can serve?

Open question: if a member in good standing renominates themselves, do we still run an open nomination process?

I think we should still have an open nomination process. It could help keep new members coming in and spread the load across the community, which seems especially important for a volunteer group. For example, I might renominate myself even though I have less and less time to serve, because I care about the community. If we then cutoff the nomination process, I serve another term even though there may be someone else who has more time and energy to devote. On the other hand, if we keep an open nomination process, I'll be able to see that other people want to serve, and could choose to withdraw my nomination with peace of mind. [1]: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/#who-is-the-committee On Wed, May 22, 2019, at 13:28, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

On May 22, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee wrote:

It's hard for all of us to make time to review proposals. Seeking more members would help with that, as well as keeping us open to fresh people and ideas.

Are you thinking about simply having a bigger committee, or are some of us about to rotate off?

I wonder if we should think about having specific term limits on the committee (excepting, perhaps -- and at their permission -- the Simons). Members could renominate themselves when their term expires. This would serve several functions:

- It's a forcing function to make sure we consider the possibility of new people on a regular basis. - A fixed term might incentivize individuals to work harder, given that the burden is time-limited. (Though a multi-year term doesn't feel very limited. To support this point, we might want to allow individuals to choose the length of their term, say an integer in the range 1-3, measured in years. There is theoretically a possibility of many people getting "in phase" and making high rollover, but we can just fix that if it happens.) - Right now, without terms, a member may feel awkward leaving, even if their interests have moved on somewhat. Term limits make a natural point at which to leave the table. - A member who wants to stay on past their term end (via self-renomination) will have an incentive to be responsive. - Though I would be thrilled to have Joachim remain Secretary in perpetuity (our BSFL -- Benevolent Secretary For Life), perhaps we should extend this idea to the secretary position, to give Joachim a natural time to renew his commitment and stave off resentment. :)

Open question: if a member in good standing renominates themselves, do we still run an open nomination process? I tend to say "no", but that that opens two more questions: what is "good standing", and what if other members of the community want in? I don't have the answers here.

Richard

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

OK, here's a suggestion for how to proceed: * Ask each existing member in to indicate their current state: a) I am happy as a member, feel I am contributing. b) I am willing to continue, but would also to be content to stand down c) I would quite like to stand down * In the light of that, and the balance of stakeholder-group representation, invite nominations for new members. In general I quite like term limits, because they remove the presumption that once you are a member you are always a member. It's easy to say "at the end of your term you can re-nominate yourself" and then be considered as part of that round. If we decide to do this we should write down whose current term ends when. I'd like to invite Joachim to continue as Secretary. You are doing a great job and we would be much less effective without you. As for Simon and myself, I think there's a case for leaving us in place as figureheads that everyone will recognise, at least for now. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 22 May 2019 19:18 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status | | Hi, | | Am Mittwoch, den 22.05.2019, 19:28 +0200 schrieb Richard Eisenberg: | > | > | > > On May 22, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering- | committee wrote: | > > | > > It's hard for all of us to make time to review proposals. Seeking | > > more members would help with that, as well as keeping us open to | > > fresh people and ideas. | > > | > > Are you thinking about simply having a bigger committee, or are some | > > of us about to rotate off? | | Some of us have become less involved recently, so I expect some voluntary | off-rotation once it is clear that there are capable candidates to fill | the spots. I don’t think we need to extend the commitee, but the | shepherding process means that less active members slow things down. | | | > I wonder if we should think about having specific term limits on the | > committee (excepting, perhaps -- and at their permission -- the | > Simons). | | The README says | | > Members have terms of 3, 4, and 5 years. | | but this has never been acted upon. | | > Members could renominate themselves when their term expires. This | > would serve several functions: | > | > - It's a forcing function to make sure we consider the possibility of | > new people on a regular basis. | > - A fixed term might incentivize individuals to work harder, given | > that the burden is time-limited. (Though a multi-year term doesn't | > feel very limited. To support this point, we might want to allow | > individuals to choose the length of their term, say an integer in the | > range 1-3, measured in years. There is theoretically a possibility of | > many people getting "in phase" and making high rollover, but we can | > just fix that if it happens.) | > - Right now, without terms, a member may feel awkward leaving, even if | > their interests have moved on somewhat. Term limits make a natural | > point at which to leave the table. | > - A member who wants to stay on past their term end (via self- | > renomination) will have an incentive to be responsive. | > - Though I would be thrilled to have Joachim remain Secretary in | > perpetuity (our BSFL -- Benevolent Secretary For Life), perhaps we | > should extend this idea to the secretary position, to give Joachim a | > natural time to renew his commitment and stave off resentment. :) | > | > Open question: if a member in good standing renominates themselves, do | > we still run an open nomination process? I tend to say "no", but that | > that opens two more questions: what is "good standing", and what if | > other members of the community want in? I don't have the answers here. | | I am leaning against a more formal process here. We have people who show | very consistent and reliable interest over many years (thinking of Iavor | here, to just give one example). Others naturally have a phase of high | activity and then lose interest for whatever reason – but this unlikely | aligns with term limits. | | So I’d be happy to keep playing it by ear, asking for new people when we | feel that we need new energy on the committee. | | Cheers, | Joachim | | BTW: I know my status mails have become slightly less often, but right now | I am happy to keep doing that job. That said: should at some point in the | future someone think “Joachim has become too distracted, and I think I can | do that job better” then please tell me that, I won’t be offended (and, at | that point in the future, likely happy to pass the job on). | | | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

Hi, Am Sonntag, den 26.05.2019, 10:42 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner:

Am Donnerstag, den 23.05.2019, 10:47 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee:

...

OK, here's a suggestion for how to proceed:

* Ask each existing member in to indicate their current state: a) I am happy as a member, feel I am contributing. b) I am willing to continue, but would also to be content to stand down c) I would quite like to stand down

good idea. I will do that in individual private messages (to encourage more honest replies), and summarize the results here.

This is the tally: A) 6 B) 3 C) 0 no reply yet) 1 Based on this and general member activity I think there is room for 2 or 3 rotations. Shall I put out a call for nominations, following the same procedure as last year? This was the announcement https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2018-July/025491.html Shall I leave the paragraph in about a call for “conservative” members, or do we feel well-balanced? Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/