Just a quick suggestion. My experience is that Formal consensus works very well in situations where informal consensus (what you guys seem to be currently using) isn't powerful enough. I've found this resource to be a good one: http://www.consensus.net/ocaccontents.html Many larger organisations use such formal mechanisms to achieve swift consensus and avoid brute majoritarian democracy or "benevolent" (if you're lucky!) dictators. If people are interested, I'd be happy to share my understanding of the matter and help facilitate such a system. On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 12:16 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 12:50:14PM +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Getting bogged down in fiddly details will just derail this effort. See here. Perfectionists will not be tolerated! ;) http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Protect_the_community [...]
I don't care much about this particular case, but we really need a better way of handling interface changes than this. We don't want proposals to rot, but changes to basic interfaces also need thorough consideration. At present, unless a proposal meets with a chorus of approval, the only way to get a decision is from SimonM or unilateral action by some committer. That needs to change, I think. -- Robert Marlow