Re: Proposal: Formalise rules for how names are chosen for approved proposals

I agree, but I believe that their should be a clear cutoff for when it becomes silly to continue debating a name (only after consensus of approval). Perhaps 3 weeks is too short, but I am strongly in favour of a cutoff for a discussion period of the name, maybe on a per-proposal basis. On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:26 PM, David Feuer wrote:

Sometimes the choice of name is fairly uncontroversial and no further bureaucracy is required. Sometimes a good name bubbles up clearly out of the discussion. The rest of the time we may need something more formal.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 12:13 PM Daniel Cartwright wrote:

...

Currently the decision of a name has been left to LML, but I can see leaving it to the Core Libraries Committee (CLC) as being a potentially good idea. One problem with that is fewer people = fewer chance for a good name. I know many programmers have trouble naming things all the time. Good names are hard to come by, and by leaving it to the LML we can hope that statistically that one of the best names will win.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Francesco Ariis wrote:

...

...

Phase 3. Proposal is approved by the LML - members of LML, for a

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:21:35AM -0400, Daniel Cartwright wrote: period of

...

3 weeks, each get up to 3 picks for a name. At the end of the 3 week period, the occurrence of each name is tallied. The name with the most tallies, becomes the name.

I would rather have Core Libraries Committee to decide. They are experienced, trusted and embodies the community as a whole! _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries