It is your library as much as you want it to be. As such you can consider yourself as the maintainer and under http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions

Changes that simply widen the API by adding new functions are a bit of a grey area. It's better to consult the community, because there may be useful feedback about (say) the order of arguments, or the name of the function, or whatnot. On the other hand few clients will actually break if you add a new function to the API. Use your judgment.

Here you have a pretty obvious combinator, with one obvious argument ordering I'd assume, so you should be able to do as you see fit.

The core libraries committee can help as much or as little as you want us to around filepath.

-Edward

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell@gmail.com> wrote:

I did semi-hand the filepath library over to the Core libraries
committee, it was just about 6 years before the committee formed so
you probably don't have records of it, which is why libraries@ is
listed as the author. I'm happy to take a more active role in
maintaining it. In particular, I was intending to review/comment on
https://github.com/haskell/filepath/pulls, and have the intention to
add a bunch of patches
(https://github.com/ndmitchell/shake/issues/174). Most of the patches
are either obviously a good idea (fixing broken code) or improving the
docs. The only one which could have any debate surrounding it is the
introduction of a new operator -<.>. I don't want to debate that now,
but it would be good to get clarification as to whether I should
unilaterally add it, or should go through the libraries submission
process, or ...

Thanks, Neil

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Andrew Gill <andygill@ku.edu> wrote:
> All,
>
> I’ve not touched hoc for quite a while. KU now has the resources to take
> ownership, if needed. It’s pretty stable, from what I understand, but could
> do with the an updated manual.
>
> Andy Gill
>
> On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Herbert:
>
> Heretofore I'd been treating filepath as owned by Neil Mitchell, but that
> statement does sound like he's handed it off to the libraries process, which
> would make it a core-libraries issue if he doesn't want to deal with it.
>
> I'm copying him on this thread to get his opinion.
>
> I've also copied Andy Gill, to see if he has any opinions on the state of
> who owns update responsibility for hpc itself.
>
> Andy, Neil: Thoughts?
>
> Thomas: Thanks for forcing this issue to attention.
>
> -Edward
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-09-28 at 19:40:25 +0200, Thomas Miedema wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Ok, final question: What about filepath and hpc? Their .cabal files list
>> > libraries@haskell.org as maintainer, which usually means the Core
>> > Libraries
>> > Committee. Should filepath be added to that list, and the maintainer for
>> > both filepath and hpc be set to the Core Libraries Committee? If not,
>> > who
>> > maintains filepath?
>>
>> This is supposed to be an answer, but rather additional data-points:
>>
>> As far as filepath is concerned:
>>
>> http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/filepath/
>>
>> states
>>
>> | The library is now part of the core Haskell libraries, and since GHC
>> | 6.6.1 has been shipped with all major compilers. While I am the
>> | original author, changes are now made through the library submissions
>> | process.
>>
>> as for Hpc, if you look at its changelog over at
>>
>> http://git.haskell.org/packages/hpc.git/shortlog
>>
>> it's been effectively maintained by GHC HQ for the last couple of
>> years...
>
>
>