Why base library changes are only discussed on GHC issue tracker and not on the libraries@ list?
To put it blunt, libraries mail list has a reputation of a place, where things are never got done. Using it for any meaningful discussion is an obsolete practice and is actually less inclusive than relevant issue trackers. I suggest we use libraries mail list to announce (controversial) proposals, but rely on other, more suitable media to discuss them. Best regards, Andrew
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 18:11:41 +0300 From: Oleg Grenrus
For example
- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044 ByteArray migration from primitive to base - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20027 Changing Show String behavior
Why they are discussed "in private", I thought libraries@ list is where such changes should be discussed.
- Oleg
It is unfortunately true that whilst many excellent point of views have been given on subjects discussed on this mailing-list (and I have been lucky to benefit from them directly), it is also a terrible platform for the kind of feedback that most need when interacting with the CLC. I know it's complicated for the committee members to express an opinion publicly without the weight of their status. Regarding "controversial" proposals, I fear that the definition of the term according to the Wiki page is a bit too broad, and I think that we would benefit from a clarification regarding the process so that it depends less on bikeshedding as the main source of feedback for Core Libraries changes. I believe we have an invaluable source of knowledge in this mailing-list, but that it is not suited for some discussions that are being held here. The format of this mailing-list proves to be extremely painful and demotivating for people who wish to improve the status quo, and it is hard to make relevant comments without direct access to the patch so that conversations can revolve around the code. Le 07/07/2021 à 20:23, Andrew Lelechenko a écrit :
To put it blunt, libraries mail list has a reputation of a place, where things are never got done. Using it for any meaningful discussion is an obsolete practice and is actually less inclusive than relevant issue trackers.
I suggest we use libraries mail list to announce (controversial) proposals, but rely on other, more suitable media to discuss them.
Best regards, Andrew
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 18:11:41 +0300 From: Oleg Grenrus
For example
- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044 ByteArray migration from primitive to base - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20027 Changing Show String behavior
Why they are discussed "in private", I thought libraries@ list is where such changes should be discussed.
- Oleg
Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-- Hécate ✨ 🐦: @TechnoEmpress IRC: Hecate WWW: https://glitchbra.in RUN: BSD
I would like also to address the fact that the CLC's communication efforts suffer from a lack of attention that undermines its legitimacy when decisions like the ByteArray relocation are taken. I understand it is the CLC's prerogative to undertake such changes, but this is typically the kind of thing that warrants an announcement, and I bet people on this list would have wanted to learn about it through official channels rather than in the middle of a recriminations thread. Being a good communicator is indeed part of the required qualities of a core maintainer¹, it is a shame that this situation is not taken care of. Best regards, Hécate ¹ https://wiki.haskell.org/Core_Libraries_Committee#Maintainer_qualities Le 07/07/2021 à 22:42, Hécate a écrit :
It is unfortunately true that whilst many excellent point of views have been given on subjects discussed on this mailing-list (and I have been lucky to benefit from them directly), it is also a terrible platform for the kind of feedback that most need when interacting with the CLC. I know it's complicated for the committee members to express an opinion publicly without the weight of their status.
Regarding "controversial" proposals, I fear that the definition of the term according to the Wiki page is a bit too broad, and I think that we would benefit from a clarification regarding the process so that it depends less on bikeshedding as the main source of feedback for Core Libraries changes.
I believe we have an invaluable source of knowledge in this mailing-list, but that it is not suited for some discussions that are being held here. The format of this mailing-list proves to be extremely painful and demotivating for people who wish to improve the status quo, and it is hard to make relevant comments without direct access to the patch so that conversations can revolve around the code.
Le 07/07/2021 à 20:23, Andrew Lelechenko a écrit :
To put it blunt, libraries mail list has a reputation of a place, where things are never got done. Using it for any meaningful discussion is an obsolete practice and is actually less inclusive than relevant issue trackers.
I suggest we use libraries mail list to announce (controversial) proposals, but rely on other, more suitable media to discuss them.
Best regards, Andrew
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 18:11:41 +0300 From: Oleg Grenrus
For example
- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044 ByteArray migration from primitive to base - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20027 Changing Show String behavior
Why they are discussed "in private", I thought libraries@ list is where such changes should be discussed.
- Oleg
Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-- Hécate ✨ 🐦: @TechnoEmpress IRC: Hecate WWW: https://glitchbra.in RUN: BSD
participants (2)
-
Andrew Lelechenko -
Hécate