Guidelines for respectful communication
Friends As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but it's far from secure. We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these Guidelines for respectful communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst> We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may choose to follow suit. We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> about the new GNU Kind Communication Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0>. Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even individuals) feel able to adopt them. The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! Simon
I lack the energy to contribute to GHC directly, but these guidelines are far too easy to abuse by someone acting in bad faith and we know that bad faith actors have been adjacent to our community and acted on things that have taken place within it. From where I'm sitting, guidelines like this risk doing even more damage than not having any. Not only do they lack the means to handle incidents that have already occurred, they actively discourage the community from finding those means. As someone these guidelines have been drafted to help include, I fear they increase the burden on my participation and that of others like me. For a community to hold together without sinking to the worst of behaviour, there needs to be some acceptance that we will all fail to act in good fatih on occasion, that some people will act in bad faith and that behaviour in bad faith may take a great deal of explaining to anyone who is not the target of it or familiar with its mechanisms. I have spent a great deal of time running spaces within the wider community and I have witnessed these things repeatedly. I also lack the resources some people here have available to mitigate the risks others have openly posed to members of the community including myself and Simon. One solution - whether GHC itself needs it or not - might be to pair guidelines for respectful communication with guidelines for when respectful communication is failing to occur. Simon, I appreciate both the work you've put in and your love for the communty. I hope you can appreciate that where I appear to be cynical or even sowing discord here, I am acting out of love and care for a community that at its best has done a great deal for me. I apologise for being the one to open up what I see as a somewhat inevitable discussion. On 06/12/2018 10:35, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell wrote:
Friends As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but it's far from secure. We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these Guidelines for respectful communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst>
We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may choose to follow suit. We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> about the new GNU Kind Communication Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0>. Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even individuals) feel able to adopt them. The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! Simon
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
I normally lurk here, but I agree with Philippa, and am grateful to her for saying what I was thinking. In particular, her suggestion about pairing guidelines for respectful communications with guidelines for what to do when things break down is an excellent one, and has worked well in other communities to help those on the fringes of a community feel welcome and able to contribute. jml On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:00 PM Philippa Cowderoy <flippa@flippac.org> wrote:
I lack the energy to contribute to GHC directly, but these guidelines are far too easy to abuse by someone acting in bad faith and we know that bad faith actors have been adjacent to our community and acted on things that have taken place within it.
From where I'm sitting, guidelines like this risk doing even more damage than not having any. Not only do they lack the means to handle incidents that have already occurred, they actively discourage the community from finding those means.
As someone these guidelines have been drafted to help include, I fear they increase the burden on my participation and that of others like me. For a community to hold together without sinking to the worst of behaviour, there needs to be some acceptance that we will all fail to act in good fatih on occasion, that some people will act in bad faith and that behaviour in bad faith may take a great deal of explaining to anyone who is not the target of it or familiar with its mechanisms.
I have spent a great deal of time running spaces within the wider community and I have witnessed these things repeatedly. I also lack the resources some people here have available to mitigate the risks others have openly posed to members of the community including myself and Simon.
One solution - whether GHC itself needs it or not - might be to pair guidelines for respectful communication with guidelines for when respectful communication is failing to occur.
Simon, I appreciate both the work you've put in and your love for the communty. I hope you can appreciate that where I appear to be cynical or even sowing discord here, I am acting out of love and care for a community that at its best has done a great deal for me. I apologise for being the one to open up what I see as a somewhat inevitable discussion. On 06/12/2018 10:35, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell wrote:
Friends As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html> <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but it's far from secure. We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these Guidelines for respectful communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst>
We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may choose to follow suit. We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> <https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> about the new GNU Kind Communication Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> <https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc> <https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0>. Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even individuals) feel able to adopt them. The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! Simon
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing listHaskell@haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
On 7 Dec 2018, at 6:47 pm, Jonathan Lange <jml@mumak.net> wrote:
In particular, her suggestion about pairing guidelines for respectful communications with guidelines for what to do when things break down is an excellent one, and has worked well in other communities to help those on the fringes of a community feel welcome and able to contribute.
I’ll also back this up. Over the last couple of years I’ve been involved in 3 separate communities which have struggled with many of the same issues. The way I see it, guidelines for Respectful Communication are statements of the desired end goal, but they don’t provide much insight as to the root causes of the problems, or how to address them. At the risk of trivialising the issue, one could reduce many such statements to “Can everyone please stop shouting and be nice to each other.” (CEPSSaBNTEO) Here are two templates for problems that I’ve seen over and over, and not necessarily in this community. The names used are placeholders. 1) Alice has become very interested in a particular technical issue and wants to change the direction of Project X to address it. Alice has contributed to Project X on and off, but did not start it and is not currently leading it. The main developer is Bob who agrees that the issue exists, but is focused on other things right now, and isn’t motivated to have a long discussion about something he sees as a minor detail. Alice continues to post on a public list about the issue, until Bob becomes exasperated and replies with something like “yes, but I don’t care about that right now”. Alice thinks the comment is directed at her personally, posts a hurt reply, then Charlie, Debbie, and Edward chime in about whether or not that was an appropriate communication. There is a thread on Reddit with 50 comments from people that Alice and Bob have never heard of. Both Alice and Bob are demotivated by the whole experience, and future potential contributors to Project X stumble across the Reddit post and decide they don’t want to get involved anymore. 2) Charlie and Debbie have been building System Y for the last 10 years as a side project, which over time has grown to be a key part of the public infrastructure. Both Charlie and Debbie are well known and respected by the community, but don’t always have time to fix bugs promptly. System Y also has some long standing issues that everyone grumbles about, but also know how to work around. Edward works for Company Z, which has recently formed to do consulting in this area. Company Z has publicly stated that they will invest 2 million dollars improving the public infrastructure, and plan to build a replacement for System Y. Some think that Edward is trying to take over System Y as a marketing exercise, others think System Y should have been replaced long ago, others think that Edward should just start funding Charlie and Debbie's work on System Y full time, instead of trying to build a new system from scratch. Charlie and Debbie are overwhelmed with all the emails and have less and less time to actually fix bugs in System Y. Next, Harold, who has been watching from the sidelines, posts a long tirade about all the reasons that Company Z is a terrible company doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Charlie barely knows Harold, but posts a small comment agreeing with the general sentiment. Edward sees the comment and promises himself that there is no way the ungrateful System Y people are ever getting any of his money. Two years later both System-Y and Company Z’s SystemY-Prime are in common use, do basically the same thing, and everyone grumbles about both. The root problems here are differences in motivation, miscommunication, and the Internet Amplification Effect (IAE). Harsh posts in public forums are a surface effect that feeds back and exacerbates the underlying problems. People like Harold who stoke the flames don’t tend to read the Respectful Communication guidelines, and everyone always feels justified in their own opinions. There is published work on dealing with conflicts in online communities [1], but I don’t pretend to be an expert. Perhaps an interested party could start a wiki page with statements of the form “If you feel like X is happening then consider doing Y.” This might also help people that are not naturally good at understanding the thoughts and motivations of other people, and work better when such advice is written down. Peace, Ben. [1] Managing Conflicts in Open Source Communities Ruben Van Wendel De Joode, 2004.
What this email seems to suggest to me is that our guidelines assume good faith, and yet some participants act in bad faith. I agree this is not well accounted-for in the guidelines. (However, the guidelines were designed with the GHC Steering Committee in mind, where members join by way of a nomination and selection process and can be removed -- quite unlike the broader Haskell community.) Before thinking about specific words / documents that solve the problem, I want to be sure I understand the problem you're highlighting. Is it the presence of bad faith actors, specifically? Thanks for coming forward with these concerns. Richard
On Dec 6, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Philippa Cowderoy <flippa@flippac.org> wrote:
I lack the energy to contribute to GHC directly, but these guidelines are far too easy to abuse by someone acting in bad faith and we know that bad faith actors have been adjacent to our community and acted on things that have taken place within it.
From where I'm sitting, guidelines like this risk doing even more damage than not having any. Not only do they lack the means to handle incidents that have already occurred, they actively discourage the community from finding those means.
As someone these guidelines have been drafted to help include, I fear they increase the burden on my participation and that of others like me. For a community to hold together without sinking to the worst of behaviour, there needs to be some acceptance that we will all fail to act in good fatih on occasion, that some people will act in bad faith and that behaviour in bad faith may take a great deal of explaining to anyone who is not the target of it or familiar with its mechanisms.
I have spent a great deal of time running spaces within the wider community and I have witnessed these things repeatedly. I also lack the resources some people here have available to mitigate the risks others have openly posed to members of the community including myself and Simon.
One solution - whether GHC itself needs it or not - might be to pair guidelines for respectful communication with guidelines for when respectful communication is failing to occur.
Simon, I appreciate both the work you've put in and your love for the communty. I hope you can appreciate that where I appear to be cynical or even sowing discord here, I am acting out of love and care for a community that at its best has done a great deal for me. I apologise for being the one to open up what I see as a somewhat inevitable discussion.
On 06/12/2018 10:35, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell wrote:
Friends As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html> <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but it's far from secure. We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these Guidelines for respectful communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst>
We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may choose to follow suit. We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> <https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> about the new GNU Kind Communication Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> <https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc> <https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0>. Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even individuals) feel able to adopt them. The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! Simon
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell@haskell.org> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell>
Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Le 09/12/2018 à 19:03, Richard Eisenberg a écrit :
What this email seems to suggest to me is that our guidelines assume good faith, and yet some participants act in bad faith. I agree this is not well accounted-for in the guidelines. ... I don't really think that Philippa Cowderoy's warning /... guidelines like this risk doing even more damage than not having any. Not only do they lack the means to handle incidents that have already occurred, they actively discourage the community from finding those means. / points to a true danger. Teaching a "correct" behaviour is anyway a never-ending process. Although I have seen a good deal of nastiness on the Web, practically never related to Haskell. There have been some doctrinal, not very serious disputes, occasionally an X or Y had too much adrenaline, but the true bad faith is something at most marginal. Perhaps the reason is -- I cite Simon: /The Haskell community is such a rich collection of *intelligent*, passionate, and committed people/. The intelligence is crucial here. It is not democratically distributed [[my goodness, am I already insulting people?!]], so we will always need Constitutions, Catechisms, sportmanship rules, etc., even without the accompanying "criminal codes". The text of Simon is NOT a proposal to introduce Haskell Inquisition.
In the context of the Haskell community, spending time on prevention & punishment of potential bad faith seems to me a bit horrible. Ben Lippmeier says
/The way I see it, guidelines for Respectful Communication are statements of the desired end goal, but they don’t provide much insight as to the root causes of the problems, or how to address them. At the risk of trivialising the issue, one could reduce many such statements to “Can everyone please stop shouting and be nice to each other.”/ It is true that most etiquette rules, as vestimentary codes, etc. are somehow superficial, but the "root causes of the problem" may be terribly complicated. It is possible to degenerate a communication system without shouting or being manifestly brutal/impolite, and here and there the wish to be '/effective/' wins over the diplomacy.
Some of my students stopped asking questions on the Stack Overflow forum because of that, and there are many other places avoided by newbies, by fragile people... Sending people away because of (apparently; often not so) duplicate questions, "downvoting", forming casts of power-enabled "gurus", who behave disrespectfully, since they are gurus, issuing statements such as: "read /some/ tutorial, and /then/ come back", etc., all this exists, may trigger angry answers, but does not implies bad faith (although too often signals somehow weak knowledge of psychology). Let's be optimistic. I think that it would do a favour for the [larger] community, if Simon agreed to send the guidelines to haskell-cafe (and perhaps to some forum outside Haskell as well), I knew many people (my former students for example), who read only the -café list... Live long and prosper. 🖖 Jerzy Karczmarczuk [France.]
Hi, On 10/12/2018 12:06, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
The intelligence is crucial here. It is not democratically distributed [[my goodness, am I already insulting people?!]], so we will always need Constitutions, Catechisms, sportmanship rules, etc., even without the accompanying "criminal codes". The text of Simon is NOT a proposal to introduce Haskell Inquisition.
You are assuming that intelligent people cannot act in bad faith, which is neither true in this community or in general. Cheers, -- - alex https://unendli.ch/
Hi On 10.12.18 12:12, Alex Silva wrote:
On 10/12/2018 12:06, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
The intelligence is crucial here. It is not democratically distributed [[my goodness, am I already insulting people?!]], so we will always need Constitutions, Catechisms, sportmanship rules, etc., even without the accompanying "criminal codes". The text of Simon is NOT a proposal to introduce Haskell Inquisition.
You are assuming that intelligent people cannot act in bad faith, which is neither true in this community or in general.
That is your interpretation, he could also assume that intelligent people usually know better than to behave badly in technical forums --- and elsewhere. Regards, Jean-Marie -- Bunkyo-Ku-Straße 1a 67663 Kaiserslautern jm@gaillourdet.net +49 176 10 6321 04
There is a wide spectrum of bad faith behaviour. It may be simply not caring if one causes harm ("recklessness", if you like), through attempts to undermine the culture of a space or community, to attempts to cause people material harm. The wider Haskell community has witnessed all of these, even if not everyone is sufficiently aware of it. On the "material harm" end of the spectrum, an incident in 2016 grew sufficiently infamous that friends with no connections to the FP community in general, computer science or the computing industry were sending me messages of sympathy and support - and I was forced to take some "opsec" measures to safeguard both myself and others. The nature of both this spectrum and of bad faith makes this a difficult problem to deal with and one that mustn't be oversimplified - not all acts are equal and the cultural impacts are complex. But people acting in bad faith - some of them persistently and possibly even with a degree of coordination - is indeed the root problem I'm highlighting. Thanks for your time and effort on this, Philippa On 09/12/2018 18:03, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
What this email seems to suggest to me is that our guidelines assume good faith, and yet some participants act in bad faith. I agree this is not well accounted-for in the guidelines. (However, the guidelines were designed with the GHC Steering Committee in mind, where members join by way of a nomination and selection process and can be removed -- quite unlike the broader Haskell community.)
Before thinking about specific words / documents that solve the problem, I want to be sure I understand the problem you're highlighting. Is it the presence of bad faith actors, specifically?
Thanks for coming forward with these concerns.
Richard
On Dec 6, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Philippa Cowderoy <flippa@flippac.org <mailto:flippa@flippac.org>> wrote:
I lack the energy to contribute to GHC directly, but these guidelines are far too easy to abuse by someone acting in bad faith and we know that bad faith actors have been adjacent to our community and acted on things that have taken place within it.
From where I'm sitting, guidelines like this risk doing even more damage than not having any. Not only do they lack the means to handle incidents that have already occurred, they actively discourage the community from finding those means.
As someone these guidelines have been drafted to help include, I fear they increase the burden on my participation and that of others like me. For a community to hold together without sinking to the worst of behaviour, there needs to be some acceptance that we will all fail to act in good fatih on occasion, that some people will act in bad faith and that behaviour in bad faith may take a great deal of explaining to anyone who is not the target of it or familiar with its mechanisms.
I have spent a great deal of time running spaces within the wider community and I have witnessed these things repeatedly. I also lack the resources some people here have available to mitigate the risks others have openly posed to members of the community including myself and Simon.
One solution - whether GHC itself needs it or not - might be to pair guidelines for respectful communication with guidelines for when respectful communication is failing to occur.
Simon, I appreciate both the work you've put in and your love for the communty. I hope you can appreciate that where I appear to be cynical or even sowing discord here, I am acting out of love and care for a community that at its best has done a great deal for me. I apologise for being the one to open up what I see as a somewhat inevitable discussion.
On 06/12/2018 10:35, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell wrote:
Friends As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but it's far from secure. We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these Guidelines for respectful communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst>
We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may choose to follow suit. We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> about the new GNU Kind Communication Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0>. Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even individuals) feel able to adopt them. The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! Simon
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell@haskell.org> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
participants (8)
-
Alex Silva -
Ben Lippmeier -
Jean-Marie Gaillourdet -
Jerzy Karczmarczuk -
Jonathan Lange -
Philippa Cowderoy -
Richard Eisenberg -
Simon Peyton Jones