| adding `\x → (x, x)` to `Data.Tuple`.[1] It was akin to throwing a
| stone into a pond — there may be a splash, a few responses, but in the
| end nothing is accomplished.
That has indeed been a problem. But the process Chessai has described should eliminate the problem.
* You write a short proposal (20 mins work)
* You submit it to the committee
* It lands on their machine-supported to-do list
* You should get a yes or no decision within the timescale
specified by the process
So you throw in the stone, and something happens, even if it's "thank you but no".
| So now it looks like things are going to get even more industry and
| research oriented, even less friendly to people of common standing.
| Has any thought been given to that?
You are not the only person who has expressed these sentiments. These responses have made it clear that it's easy to interpret the proposed new process as adding new slow and bureaucratic overheads. I think we should try to make clearer that, quite to the contrary, it's designed to make sure that every proposal gets timely attention.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Libraries On Behalf Of Ignat Insarov
| Sent: 16 September 2020 17:29
| To: amindfv@mailbox.org
| Cc: Bertram Felgenhauer via Libraries
| Subject: Re: New Libraries Proposal process
|
| I apologise for intrusion but I have a question.
|
| I would like to ask if all this was ever supposed to work for simple
| folk — a hobbyist or a small-time freelancer. _(I am that.)_ I tried
| bringing up small _«proposals»_ on this list previously, such as
| adding `\x → (x, x)` to `Data.Tuple`.[1] It was akin to throwing a
| stone into a pond — there may be a splash, a few responses, but in the
| end nothing is accomplished. On the other hand, bringing issues up on
| the issue tracker of an individual package would result in a rebuttal
| with a reference to the higher authority of the faceless crowd on the
| mailing list.[2]
|
| So now it looks like things are going to get even more industry and
| research oriented, even less friendly to people of common standing.
| Has any thought been given to that?
|
| [1]:
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haske
| ll.org%2Fpipermail%2Flibraries%2F2019-
| July%2F029747.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C2ca841705125
| 4bd7205608d85a5da425%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6373587055
| 20838463&sdata=oTK%2Fkx6PaRa1jct92polqMfGddaqGZiIkyhIQaivSOg%3D&rese
| rved=0
| [2]:
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com
| %2Fhaskell%2Fcontainers%2Fissues%2F744&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsof
| t.com%7C2ca8417051254bd7205608d85a5da425%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%
| 7C1%7C0%7C637358705520838463&sdata=U6iXUJLRGktuwTrO5bwX4HwmKrR1rAdoPEsBZ
| bPdJd0%3D&reserved=0
|
|
| On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 04:26, amindfv@mailbox.org
| wrote:
| >
| > I'd like to +1 everything said here, and say as an observer it's strange
| to have the decision made privately and announced here as a fait accompli.
| >
| > Another thing to note about email is that it's decentralized and has (and
| presumably always will have) plenty of clients and tools. I've seen
| discussions linking to email conversations that are significantly older than
| GitHub itself - there's value to archives of old discussions. If GitHub
| folds or starts charging money or redesigns its site in an unhelpful way,
| all discussion would be lost or made less accessible. Whereas mailing list
| archives can jump to new hosts indefinitely.
| >
| > Tom
| >
| >
| > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Bertram Felgenhauer via
| Libraries wrote:
| > > Carter Schonwald wrote:
| > > > Are you sure about this approach? I think you need to start with an
| > > > open discussion , And have a open ended thread about ideas for how to
| > > > improve how we do things.
| > >
| > > I totally agree with this, though fleshing out ideas in a smaller
| > > forum first is helpful.
| > >
| > > An important consideration here is that there are several types of
| > > stakeholders in the library proposal process, including
| > >
| > > * the CLC members, who ultimately decide on core library changes;
| > > * proponents ("authors"), who originate proposals for such changes;
| > > and
| > > * observers ("the wider Haskell community"), users of the core
| > > libraries who want to keep track of upcoming library changes and
| > > chime in when a proposal affects their own uses of a library.
| > >
| > > I suspect that the observers are a silent majority, and that a mailing
| > > list with public archives is close to optimal for them. (I consider
| > > myself an observer and I do like the mailing list for precisely this
| > > reason. But I also grew up with mailing lists, not forums, so I'm
| > > surely biased here.)
| > >
| > > In any case I think that any change to the library proposal process
| > > should cater to all three types of stakeholders (and possibly others
| > > I have failed to think of). In its current form, I believe
| > >
| > >
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com
| %2Fhaskell-core%2Fcore-libraries-
| proposals&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C2ca8417051254bd720560
| 8d85a5da425%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637358705520838463&
| amp;sdata=bOP4zOD6oPG8p5EnSJPr2EeTFGWfMrggpYrLVmS9xgA%3D&reserved=0
| > >
| > > fails to do that for observers.
| > >
| > > Cheers,
| > >
| > > Bertram
| > > _______________________________________________
| > > Libraries mailing list
| > > Libraries@haskell.org
| > >
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskel
| l.org%2Fcgi-
| bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.
| com%7C2ca8417051254bd7205608d85a5da425%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C
| 1%7C0%7C637358705520838463&sdata=htbnzKwMR22jhgKRrkWWH%2BS4KQfHs5rKsJ%2F
| TCoXp9CI%3D&reserved=0
| > _______________________________________________
| > Libraries mailing list
| > Libraries@haskell.org
| >
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskel
| l.org%2Fcgi-
| bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.
| com%7C2ca8417051254bd7205608d85a5da425%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C
| 1%7C0%7C637358705520838463&sdata=htbnzKwMR22jhgKRrkWWH%2BS4KQfHs5rKsJ%2F
| TCoXp9CI%3D&reserved=0
| _______________________________________________
| Libraries mailing list
| Libraries@haskell.org
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskel
| l.org%2Fcgi-
| bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.
| com%7C2ca8417051254bd7205608d85a5da425%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C
| 1%7C0%7C637358705520838463&sdata=htbnzKwMR22jhgKRrkWWH%2BS4KQfHs5rKsJ%2F
| TCoXp9CI%3D&reserved=0
