Haskell mailing list etiquette
Dear mailing list participants, I recently discovered a document that contains, neatly enumerated, all the rules that we as a community follow today when discussing Haskell topics. Please direct Haskell newcomers to it as early as possible, so that they can learn our mode of working upfront, and don't have to discover it bit by bit. For everybody's convenience, I here are the key points: * When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible. * Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. * Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can. * Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. * Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. * Advocate "caution". Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. * Be worried about the propriety of any decision - raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon. You can find the full list of rules here (refer to page 28): https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-st... Best, Niklas
On 2018-04-01 17:16, Niklas Hambüchen wrote: [--snip--]
For everybody's convenience, I here are the key points:
* When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible.
* Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Yes, but what about the children?
* Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can.
Well, my story begins in nineteen dickety-two...
* Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
That last comma should be "and".
* Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
I don't we ever decided upon that rule. Can someone re-check the archives?
* Advocate "caution". Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
No real isssue with this, but I feel it might be a bit rash.
* Be worried about the propriety of any decision - raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
I definite agree that we need guidelines in this area and I propose that we form a committe to evaluate this proposal and further counter-proposals that may arise. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Literature Prize winner at https://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2012 Regards,
participants (2)
-
Bardur Arantsson -
Niklas Hambüchen