Discussion on #214, Namespace specifiers
Hello, let's have a discussion about proposal #214, Namespace specifiers. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214 I believe our new process is to have the discussion on Github, so please share your thoughts over there. I am a bit unclear about the steps in the new process (even though I voted for it :-), but as the shepherd I think I am supposed to make an initial? recommendation. If so, at the moment I am leaning towards a "reject": I do think that the proposal has identified a valid area for improvement, but I don't quite like the currently proposed solution---I wrote some comments on GIthub as to why. Obviously, that's just my opinion, and the discussion would benefit from more input from the committee. Cheers, -Iavor
Hi, Am Freitag, den 31.05.2019, 11:15 -0700 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
I believe our new process is to have the discussion on Github, so please share your thoughts over there.
I am a bit unclear about the steps in the new process (even though I voted for it :-), but as the shepherd I think I am supposed to make an initial? recommendation.
If so, at the moment I am leaning towards a "reject": I do think that the proposal has identified a valid area for improvement, but I don't quite like the currently proposed solution---I wrote some comments on GIthub as to why.
Obviously, that's just my opinion, and the discussion would benefit from more input from the committee.
if you think it should be rejected, the idea is that you first discuss this with the authors (on Github), to make sure that they had a chance to respond to your criticism and make sure they feel understood. Once that is settled, you follow the steps under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process HTH, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
I've tagged #214 (Namespace specifiers) as "Pending Committee" review.
Due to some confusion with the process on my part, I already sent an
e-mail about this earlier, so we've already had some discussion on the
topic, but if you have any additional input please chime in:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214
-Iavor
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:24 AM Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 31.05.2019, 11:15 -0700 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
I believe our new process is to have the discussion on Github, so please share your thoughts over there.
I am a bit unclear about the steps in the new process (even though I voted for it :-), but as the shepherd I think I am supposed to make an initial? recommendation.
If so, at the moment I am leaning towards a "reject": I do think that the proposal has identified a valid area for improvement, but I don't quite like the currently proposed solution---I wrote some comments on GIthub as to why.
Obviously, that's just my opinion, and the discussion would benefit from more input from the committee.
if you think it should be rejected, the idea is that you first discuss this with the authors (on Github), to make sure that they had a chance to respond to your criticism and make sure they feel understood. Once that is settled, you follow the steps under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
HTH, 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
participants (2)
-
Iavor Diatchki -
Joachim Breitner