On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Mikolaj Konarski <mikolaj@well-typed.com> wrote:

> None of these rhetorical questions are satisfactory.
> I understand the need to iterate on a design and start with a vague
> specification.
> But by the time something concrete is figured out, it should be explained.
> Explaining the iteration process with a few of the code examples would
> answer a lot of the questions here.
> In the end, the changes have been explained many times over now, just not
> coherently in one place.

Greg, if that ticket was (it almost is:) a wiki page, would that be
satisfactory?

https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9586

Perhaps, if the discussion on the ticket was summarized into an explantation. But it is too much to wade through right now.

I assume it wasn't linked to and advertised enough.
Where would we need to link to it, how often (e.g., after each
major commit?) and what modifications would be necessary,
if it's not clear enough?

At some point a link to the proposal would need to appear in the mail list. Updating as iteration occurs is a good question. That is going to end up being a judgement call. Every time there is a major change or decision, particularly among alternatives that cause breakage, it would be good to mention it on the mail list. I would imagine that ended up happening a few times in this case.