
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:48:22AM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
This "burning bridges" thread has really got us going!
I'm a bit concerned, though, that we don't have an effective mechanism for resolving such debates. If everyone feels that they have a vote, perhaps, but only one among many, then one feels either mandated or indeed willing to invest the extra cycles to summarise pros and cons based on feedback, crisply articulate alternatives, and so on. And, worse still, no one feels mandated to actually decide anything.
FWIW, the current library process http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions actually requires that the proposer evaluates the result: At the end of the discussion period, summarise your understanding of the consensus (or lack thereof), including a link to the thread in the mailing list archives, and send the summary to the maintainer for decision. [...] If the decision is positive, create a ticket on the GHC trac. If someone does that, then I generally do a quick skim of the list archives and then apply the change. I don't think I've ever rejected a proposal that got as far as a ticket, but many don't get that far. I have no objections to a committee doing the evaluation (or the execution, for that matter) instead, though. Thanks Ian -- Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/