Re: New CLC proposal process

What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core library". Can non-core libraries become core? And vice versa? What's the criterion?

As a human settlement evolves and grows, the need for more coordination and governance arises. Maybe one of my great-grand-ancestors build and maintained a road from his farm to a shed. But over the centuries both the farm and the shed evolved into villages, and the once private road is now essential for the lives of many. So the community will assume ownership of the once private road. In the same way, a "state of Haskell" is now emerging, and we cannot just rely on private maintenance of packages that are essential to the Haskell ecosystem. What a criterion could be? For a start, the order of magnitude on how many live packages rely on a certain package. --Andreas On 2021-11-03 10:17, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:

| These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell | is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers | without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea.

I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says

As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not maintain so-called Core Libraries

So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the individual core libraries themselves to their respective maintainers. That sounds OK to me, doesn't it?

The doc also says that if a core-library maintainer becomes unresponsive, the CLC will seek another.

What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core library". Can non-core libraries become core? And vice versa? What's the criterion? I suppose it could simply be historical, but that seems less than ideal.

I welcome the CLC reboot, especially having a process so that we know what issues are in play, and what decisions have been taken.

Simon

[1] https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee

PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which point simonpj@microsoft.com will cease to work. Use simon.peytonjones@gmail.com instead. (For now, it just forwards to simonpj@microsoft.com.)

| -----Original Message----- | From: Libraries On Behalf Of Julian | Ospald | Sent: 02 November 2021 18:40 | To: Andrew Lelechenko | Cc: libraries@haskell.org | Subject: Re: New CLC proposal process | | Well, | | this confirms my disappointment. | | Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the | current CLC? | | From reading this thread, my impression is rather that this | disengagement has been formalized in the form of a proposal process | and a statement that the "Core libraries comittee" is no longer | responsible for the "Core libraries", which I find rather odd. | | It is my personal impression that the community wants an engaged CLC | that is able to moderate discussions, help with projects related to | the core libraries and possibly make decisions that are entirely | technical and bear no political nuances. | | These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into haskell | is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers | without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea. | | Cheers, | Julian | | | On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Andrew Lelechenko wrote: | > 1. On contrary, we narrowed CLC from 9 to 6 members to make it more | manageable. | > | > 2. CLC was incapable to deal with wider ecosystem issues for years. | It is better not to nourish false hopes. | > | > I believe in "Make each committee do one thing well". CLC's primary | and undivided responsibility is `base` and, as witnessed by a huge | backlog, even this single thing was handled below expectations. It's | not like we are in a good position to accept additional, wider | responsibilities. | > | > Remember that "core libraries" is an abstract moniker without much | consistency: e. g., before very recent `text` was not core, and it | includes `mtl`, but not `transformers`, and does not include | `containers`. So AFAIU CLC was never a correct body for ecosystem-wide | changes. | > | > (FWIW I'm hugely interested in AFPP and happy to help in my personal | > capacity) | > | > Best regards, | > Andrew | > | > > On 31 Oct 2021, at 09:49, Julian Ospald | wrote: | > > | > > That sounds rather disappointing to me. | > > | > > So what has been done to reboot the CLC is: | > > | > > 1. add more people and | > > 2. narrow the scope and offload ecosystem issues to the Haskell | > > Foundation? | > > | > > I've been trying to get input from the CLC for the past year on an | > > issue that affects potentially all of core libraries and I don't | > > think it's feasible to contact all of the maintainers isolated. | > > | > > Does that mean CLC won't assist me in contacting core library | > > maintainers and moderating a discussion? | > > | > > | > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23:57AM +0100, Andrew Lelechenko wrote: | > >> As | > >> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg | > >> ithub.com%2Fhaskell%2Fcore-libraries- | committee%2Fblob%2Fmain%2FREAD | > >> | ME.md&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e | > >> | 95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63771 | > >> | 4752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV | > >> | 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bSfoLPWt2rMe | > >> P1mMkImk2U5jOM39BI%2FBDNtHisaKeIY%3D&reserved=0 | > >> says, CLC owns, but does not maintain core libraries as long as | > >> they are kept in order by appointed maintainers. If you find a | core | > >> library abandoned and neglected, raise an issue with CLC. | > >> | > >> Otherwise proposals affecting core libraries should be discussed | > >> with respective maintainers first. They can seek CLC opinion on | > >> controversial changes, but are not obliged to. | > >> | > >> I suppose HF Tech Track could be a helpful body to ask a | > >> non-binding opinion on changes with a wider scope. | > >> | > >> Best regards, | > >> Andrew | > >> | > >> | > >> On 31 Oct 2021, at 00:08, Julian Ospald | wrote: | > >> | > >> Do I understand correctly that the CLC only governs base now? | > >> | > >> If not, where does one raise other issues that potentially | affect core | > >> libraries? | > >> | > >> On October 30, 2021 8:13:18 PM UTC, Andrew Lelechenko < | > >> andrew.lelechenko@gmail.com> wrote: | > >> | > >> | > >> I'm happy to announce that Core Libraries Committee has | completed | > >> post-election reboot and now has a new home at | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith | ub.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0 | e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377147 | 52441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz | IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PV%2BwQ3dDsgZsFB%2FJ | gTvCJ6%2BnaMCLY0pxWmG2GrOuTrI%3D&reserved=0 | > >> haskell/core-libraries-committee and a new GitHub-based | process: https: | > >> //github.com/haskell/core-libraries- | committee/blob/main/PROPOSALS.md. | > >> | > >> From now on proposals to change base should be raised as | GitHub issues | > >> instead of emails to libraries@. | > >> | > >> Best regards, | > >> Andrew | > >> | > >> | > | _______________________________________________ | Libraries mailing list | Libraries@haskell.org | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail. | haskell.org%2Fcgi- | bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40micr | osoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 | cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637714752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo | iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000& | ;sdata=eaBTod9nh0hgY6vBatTLNYSd1vfPTNY8LKDd89wmyy0%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries