I think the difficulty has always been in finding enough people who are
* Well-informed and well-qualified
* Willing to spend the time to standardise language features
GHC does not help the situation: it's a de-facto standard, which reduces the incentives to spend time in standardisation.
I don’t think we should blame anyone for not wanting to invest this time -- no shame here. It is a very significant commitment, as I know from editing the Haskell 98 report and the incentives are weak. Because of that, I am not very optimistic about finding such a group -- we have been abortively trying for several years.
If we want to change that, the first thing is to build a case that greater standardisation is not just an "abstract good" that we all subscribe to, but something whose lack is holding us back.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Haskell-prime On Behalf Of
| Mario Blaževic
| Sent: 05 October 2018 17:47
| To: haskell-prime@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Quo vadis?
|
| On 2018-10-05 09:10 AM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > On 10/05/2018 01:20 PM, Mario Blažević wrote:
| >> I hereby propose we formally disband the present Haskell 2020
| >> committee. Our performance has been so dismal
| >
| > It has.
| >
| > And I should apologise in particular: I've just had far less time than
| > I thought over the past year for a variety of reasons.
| >
| >> that I feel this is the
| >> only course of action that gives Haskell 2020 any chance of fruition.
| >> A new committee could then be formed with some more dedicated
| membership.
| >
| > I'm less convinced about that, though. I believe those who signed up
| > for H2020 actually are people who believe in the value of an updated
| > standard and has core expertise to make it happen.
|
| Regarding the beliefs, if we really represent the most zealous group
| of Haskell enthusiasts, I have to say the community is in deep trouble. I
| have no evidence, but I can only hope you're wrong.
|
| As for the expertise, my impression is that *everybody* who self-
| nominated for the committee got accepted. My own self-nomination e-mail
| [1] explicitly said that
|
|
| > The main reason I'm applying is because I'm afraid that the commitee
| > might disband like the previous one. If there are enough members
| > already, feel free to ignore my nomination.
|
| Yet I'm in. This was not a high bar to clear.
|
|
| > I can't see how giving up and forming a new group would speed things
| > up or even increase the chance of success.
|
| I was kinda hoping for a Simon ex machina, where a few universally-
| accepted members of the community hand-pick a new committee.
| Alternatively, we could come up with some stricter criteria for the next
| committee before we disband but that assumes we can even get a quorum.
|
| Lest I'm suspected of some Machiavellian plot, let me be clear that
| I refuse to be a part of the next committee, if my proposal should be
| accepted. Honestly I feel that all members of the present committee with
| any sense of shame should recuse themselves as well, but that's not up to
| me.
|
|
| > Instead, what about focusing on identifying a couple of things that
| > absolutely would have to be in H2020 to make a new standard
| > worthwhile, like multi-parameter type classes, possibly GADTs, then
| > figure out what else is needed to support that (like what Anthony
| > Clayden sketched), and with that as a basis, find out exactly what
| > technical problems, if any, are hindering progress?
| >
| > If this could be neatly summarized, then we'd actually be in a
| > position to make some progress.
|
| That is much the plan we agreed on over a year ago during ICFP 2018.
| The activity since then is plain to see.
|
|
| [1]
| http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2015-
| September/003939.html
|
| _______________________________________________
| Haskell-prime mailing list
| Haskell-prime@haskell.org
| http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
