On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:37 PM, John Wiegley
In the last round, delegates from each country who make the final decision by majority. In the case of Haskell, our "countries" might be different: Academia, Industry, Hobbyists, etc. These delegates are supposed to represent the will of their constituents, but can vote however they wish.
The trouble with this would be that the split in the community does not seem to be between e.g. the interests of academia and industry but between conversative people in academia and the industry and those who are more open to language changes in both groups. I suspect the divide isn't even close to the same on most questions either so a representative system might be tricky to implement. Maybe if some form of grouping of people in the community is necessary it should be made along the lines of the groups we saw mentioned in recent FTP discussions: authors of printed books, new Haskell users coming from other languages and new Haskell users learning it without prior experience, Haskell teachers, maintainers of libraries spanning many GHC versions, users writing new code without backwards compatibility concerns, those interested in using only one of the existing Haskell standards without language extensions and those interested in using the latest extensions available,... Perhaps in future discussions a focus should be on identifying and grouping the users affected by each change and each user should be encouraged to vote +1, 0 or -1 for each of the groups they are a part of separately, explaining how they arrived at their final vote themselves. Matthias Hörmann