Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:05:05PM -0400, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:05:05 -0400 From: Richard Eisenberg To: David Luposchainsky Cc: M Farkas-Dyck , Haskell-prime Mailing List Subject: Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

...

On Sep 22, 2016, at 5:08 PM, David Luposchainsky via Haskell-prime wrote:

I did not plan this out too much. I would say let's use common sense rather than setting up processes. The columns are to give viewers an overview for our open process.

I think having a formal process aids in transparency, something that some in our community feel is lacking. I therefore think that we should indeed have a formal process. If the process ends up tying our hands behind our back, then we change it!

I like the process suggested by M.

i agree, and would like to propose an independent ratification process. the following is all from me listening to people who have an intimidating amout of experience with this. icfp is great! (-: everybody can sign up to the ratification process with email and a few lines on who they are and why they care. once the standard is finalized, everybody gets to vote. nay-voters have to (are allowed to?) submit change requests that would compell them to vote yay. if the proposal gets 70% yays it becomes law, and nobody gets to complain that they haven't been asked. if the proposal falls short of the 70%, the change requests are reviewed and negotiated into a new proposal. this is hoped to take less effort than the original draft, but still enough to discourage people from frivolously opposing ideas they don't like but can live with. ratification is important for acceptance in the wider community. scheme set the bar at 50% and the standard came through with 51%, which didn't convince the nay-sayers much to embrace the it. curious how you all feel about this- m.