There were something like 12 respondents initially, followed by 15-20
respondents after we broke the format out into multiple responses here on
the mailing list (with some overlap) and 115 in the straw poll with biased
wording that was sent out by some folks on #haskell (with more overlap),
but the results correlated pretty tightly.
-Edward
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Ryan Newton
What was the sample size on the 85% vote? Is there a website for keeping track of these persistently?
Personally I think a persistent, open poll has a higher chance of capturing a wide participation. Short fuse votes will exacerbate sampling bias.
I'm a refugee from Scheme-istan. Most important to me are not the specific technical outcomes, but that a sense of community cohesiveness survives, avoiding, for example the post-R6RS affair (divergent R7Rs, Racket split).
Not that that could happen easily with Haskell. Thank goodness for a single dominant implementation ;). To you, GHC!
On Saturday, May 25, 2013, Ian Lynagh wrote:
responsible for maintenance, can make decisions, but is still bound by the votes on library proposals.
Just to clarify the current libraries process:
A few people have used the word "vote", but we don't vote on library proposals. If we wanted to change that then we would first need to answer the question of who was elligible to vote.
There is some clarification on this in http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions For example:
Proposals that have widespread support, and are accompanied by patches (preferably with tests and documentation), should normally be accepted by the maintainer.
It is up to the maintainer to decide what "widespread" means; in particular, it does not always mean "a majority of those who responded". The majority-responder story is vulnerable to selection bias; e.g. 7 people (out of a client base of hundreds) say "add this function" but the maintainer thinks it will make the interface incrementally more complicated without sufficient benefit.
and:
The maintainer still has ultimate say in what changes are made, but the community should have the opportunity to comment on changes. However, unanimity (or even a majority) is not required.
Thanks Ian -- Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries