Redid our documentation

Joachim Breitner

25 Feb 2017 25 Feb '17

11:26 p.m.

[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

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 833 bytes)

Show replies by date

Richard Eisenberg

26 Feb 26 Feb

11:47 a.m.

...

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

Christopher Allen

12:07 p.m.

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-committee

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

Manuel M T Chakravarty

6:16 p.m.

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-committee

-- 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-committee

Joachim Breitner

9:29 p.m.

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/

Manuel M T Chakravarty

10 p.m.

Hi Joachim, No, I don’t think, the secretary should be expected to watch repositories. However, GitHub notifications can be configured to send an email — here is the notifications settings screen If ”Email” is checked under ”Participating” for the secretary, an @mention will send an email to the secretary. Hence, I would suggest to require of proposal authors that they add a comment explicitly @mention’ing the secretary when they want to submit a proposal for review. And, thank you that you are willing to assume the role of the secretary! Cheers, Manuel PS: I haven’t used GitHub project boards myself much, but they may be useful to provide a high-level overview on GitHub itself: https://help.github.com/articles/tracking-the-progress-of-your-work-with-pro... https://help.github.com/articles/tracking-the-progress-of-your-work-with-pro... PPS: Alternatively, if you don’t want to get emails for GitHub conversations you are participating in, you can also always just watch your GitHub notifications on the web interface without any need to actually go into all the repos and check whether somebody wrote a message requesting review.

...

Joachim Breitner :

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

Joachim Breitner

27 Feb 27 Feb

7:15 p.m.

Hi, Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 14:00 +1100 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:

...

Hence, I would suggest to require of proposal authors that they add a comment explicitly @mention’ing the secretary when they want to submit a proposal for review.

yes, this is precisely what the current process documentation ask the authors to do: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#how-to-bring-a-proposal-befor... 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

Manuel M T Chakravarty

8:14 p.m.

Great! One small suggestion that just occurred to me: should we maybe note the GitHub handles of all committee members next to their name in the committee list? That might be useful for authors who want to approach people at some point to ask questions etc. Manuel

...

Joachim Breitner :

Hi,

Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 14:00 +1100 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:

...
Hence, I would suggest to require of proposal authors that they add a comment explicitly @mention’ing the secretary when they want to submit a proposal for review.

yes, this is precisely what the current process documentation ask the authors to do: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#how-to-bring-a-proposal-befor...

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

Joachim Breitner

8:20 p.m.

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 28.02.2017, 12:14 +1100 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:

...

Great! One small suggestion that just occurred to me: should we maybe note the GitHub handles of all committee members next to their name in the committee list? That might be useful for authors who want to approach people at some point to ask questions etc.

I started that already, by adding mine, as you can see in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#who-is-the-committee If you think it is useful to list all GitHub handles, well, I can do that. One moment... 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

Manuel M T Chakravarty

9:16 p.m.

Thanks — seeing yours inspired me to make the suggestion :) Manuel

...

Am 28.02.2017 um 12:20 schrieb Joachim Breitner :

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 28.02.2017, 12:14 +1100 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:

...
Great! One small suggestion that just occurred to me: should we maybe note the GitHub handles of all committee members next to their name in the committee list? That might be useful for authors who want to approach people at some point to ask questions etc.

I started that already, by adding mine, as you can see in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#who-is-the-committee

If you think it is useful to list all GitHub handles, well, I can do that. One moment...

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

Christopher Allen

12:20 a.m.

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

Ben Gamari

5:48 p.m.

Joachim Breitner writes:

...

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.

Yes, I think this sounds quite reasonable and I realize I've been woefully remiss in this capacity. Despite a few attempts at trying to get into a rhythm I've so far been unable to do so. I really appreciate your stepping up, Joachim. Cheers, - Ben

Simon Peyton Jones

5:20 a.m.

| 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.) Fine with me provided someone tells me how (iff we decide to take this approach). S | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee- | bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Manuel M T Chakravarty | Sent: 26 February 2017 23:17 | To: Christopher Allen | Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org; Joachim Breitner | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Redid our documentation | | 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail | >> .haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee& | >> data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C794804e2706940e83cb008d45e9d | >> a111%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636237478497904474& | >> sdata=dgEObMpv0tcZhc%2FFJkgI61nRdE%2Boup4lR8%2Fgw%2BMxwZs%3D&reserved | >> =0 | > | > | > | > -- | > Chris Allen | > Currently working on | > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhaskel | > lbook.com&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C794804e2706940e83cb | > 008d45e9da111%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63623747849 | > 7904474&sdata=Hin%2FwBr5RiSh2n9esw54baOxoBbkOMZfBYC43nUZd9I%3D&reserve | > d=0 _______________________________________________ | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list | > ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail. | > haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&da | > ta=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C794804e2706940e83cb008d45e9da11 | > 1%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636237478497904474&sdat | > a=dgEObMpv0tcZhc%2FFJkgI61nRdE%2Boup4lR8%2Fgw%2BMxwZs%3D&reserved=0 | | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.hask | ell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering- | committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C794804e2706940e83cb008d | 45e9da111%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636237478497904474& | sdata=dgEObMpv0tcZhc%2FFJkgI61nRdE%2Boup4lR8%2Fgw%2BMxwZs%3D&reserved=0

Simon Marlow

5:48 a.m.

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 wrote:

...

[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

Joachim Breitner

2:03 p.m.

Hi, Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 10:48 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow:

...

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

I don’t think this is true. The first mention of Shephard is after the bullet point “Once the committee has been notified that a proposal is ready for decision”.

...

(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.

I doubt it. Many proposals never seem to reach the state where they are actually submitted for review, e.g. due to negative feedback in the discussion phase. No point in wasting resources on these. Anyways, we can refine the process later. I will merge the current documentation now, including declaring me the Secretary. 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

Christopher Allen

2:13 p.m.

...

Many proposals never seem to reach the state where they are actually submitted for review, e.g. due to negative feedback in the discussion phase. No point in wasting resources on these.

Seems like a good thing to me as well, I agree. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Hi,

Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 10:48 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow:

...
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

I don’t think this is true. The first mention of Shephard is after the bullet point “Once the committee has been notified that a proposal is ready for decision”.

...
(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.

I doubt it. Many proposals never seem to reach the state where they are actually submitted for review, e.g. due to negative feedback in the discussion phase. No point in wasting resources on these.

Anyways, we can refine the process later. I will merge the current documentation now, including declaring me the Secretary.

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

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

Simon Peyton Jones

28 Feb 28 Feb

6:58 a.m.

Joachim, The new organisation at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals is so much better. Thank you! How can I edit it in cosmetic ways? I see no edit button. (Defeated by github again.) I agree that we should assign a shepherd when the owner submits a proposal to the committee. Of course committee members can (and I hope will) get involved earlier. Simon From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Simon Marlow Sent: 27 February 2017 10:48 To: Joachim Breitner Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Redid our documentation 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 mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: [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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Ftree%2Fwip%2Fdocs-restructur&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc3454ff11b474b5813a108d45efe20c3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636237892968379132&sdata=sM402v4a3DgfMjmvUADYzPLWEMgEbCMzHwrlS8Gs7kk%3D&reserved=0 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.demailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc3454ff11b474b5813a108d45efe20c3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636237892968535389&sdata=yVRoXu9qb%2BYvutm%2FGb%2FzFd04NMr7taMaVFIzLz4P9wQ%3D&reserved=0 XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.demailto:nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.orgmailto:nomeata@debian.org _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc3454ff11b474b5813a108d45efe20c3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636237892968535389&sdata=w84hmRquM4%2BcK47yt43tAgl8iyzIcK7BoCht2FiLaSs%3D&reserved=0

Joachim Breitner

12:19 p.m.

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 28.02.2017, 11:58 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:

...

How can I edit it in cosmetic ways? I see no edit button. (Defeated by github again.)

If you click on the README.rst filename in the directory listing, you end up here: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/README.rst and there is a ✏ symbol in the top-right corner. 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

3004

Age (days ago)

3006

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

17 comments

7 participants

participants (7)

Ben Gamari
Christopher Allen
Joachim Breitner
Manuel M T Chakravarty
Richard Eisenberg
Simon Marlow
Simon Peyton Jones