Re: Haskell ecosystem improvements meta-propsal

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:45 AM Mark Lentczner wrote:

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Meyer wrote:

...

I've dealt with the IETF RFC process and the Python PEP process, and both of them worked better than that.

While both those are good examples of mostly working organizations shepherding foundational technical standard(s) along... there is one thing more important than their processes: Their stance. Both organizations have a very strong engineering discipline of keeping deployed things working without change. I don't think it is enough to simply model their process.

Well, until Python 3, anyway. My goal wasn't to recreate the engineering discipline that deployed things keep working without change as you upgrade the ecosystem, it's to provide a mechanism so the community can more easily engage with the evolution of the ecosystem. Hopefully this will make it easier for the community to move things forward in a desirable manner. But it's a process, and leaves the question of whether the desire is for more stability or a less stagnant language up to the users of the process. I don't necessarily want to model the IETF or PEP processes. Those are a starting point. I tried to abstract the initial points out enough that the final result could be either one of them, or something totally unrelated that's a better fit for the Haskell community.