Friends Thanks to those who responded to the message below, about improving the process for developing the core Haskell libraries. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions/NewDraft Feedback has been broadly positive, with constructive suggestions that we've incorporated in the text. I suggest that we leave another week for debate and refinement, and (unless there are some substantial new points) adopt the new process from 9 June. I hope that's agreeable. (We don't have a process for modifying the process :-) Simon | I think there is general agreement that | * The library submission process is too daunting, especially because you have to | come up with a complete implementation of a proposal before you even know | whether it's going to fly. | * The process gets stuck because achieving universal consensus is too difficult | * The maintainer "libraries@haskell.org" means that no individual feels responsible | for making a decision on a proposal. | | What we need is something to put in its place. Simon and I have been cooking up a | proposal. Here it is: | | http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions/NewDraft | | It is aimed just at libraries whose maintainer is listed as libraries@haskell.org. | (The thousands of other libraries with named maintainers can obviously do whatever | their maintainer wants, although perhaps this new draft may be useful for them too.) | | It's a draft. What do you think of it? Do you think it would be better than the | status quo? Can you suggest any improvements? | | ALSO: does anyone (or two or three people) want to volunteer to act as maintainer for | any of the "Volunteer needed" packages? Johan, I was thinking you might serve for | 'containers', perhaps in harness with someone else since it is such a crucial | package. | | | Simon | | _______________________________________________ | Cvs-ghc mailing list | Cvs-ghc@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc