On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 08:31:17PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Passing all requirements would be the criteria for inclusion.
I would say "Passing all requirements would be sufficient for inclusion", but we may decide to include packages that don't meet all the requirements.
* That the policy document itself is too long and too detailed.
That it anticipates eventualities that may or may not arise in practise.
That the overall length is a problem because it is off-putting, with the danger that people simply will not read it.
Right. I was admittedly reading it at ~2am, but IIRC the way I read it was: * Hmm, the widget on the scrollbar is very small. Reading this is going to take a while. * Drag widget down a bit. See "[note-6.3]". Hmm, jumping up and down between the text and all the notes is really going to break the flow if I try and read it properly. * Drag widget down more. See sections like "Acceptance", "Proposal content" and "Package requirements", not realising I was looking at rationale. * Drag widget down more, and see the "Achieving consensus" major section. Boggle at the size as compared to the library submissions proposal. * Read a little text, probably from the early "Procedure" section. By contrast, I would probably have read this: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/AddingPackagesCore If you do want to keep the rationale in the same document then making it expandable inline with JavaScript may be better. (It would still work in non-JS browsers, but be very verbose in them).
Ian, is this a fair summary? Is there anything I've missed that I didn't address specifically in the previous email?
Yes, I think it's a fair summary and covers everything. Thanks Ian