| >> About participation (and I've not been great myself), I think that if | >> we have a round-robin system of assigning committee members to | >> proposals then it'll help to prevent the problem that we each assume .... | > | > Yes, that sounds like a good plan. If a committee member wants to skip | > because of a conflict of interest, (also maybe particularly *wants* to | > volunteer at a particular time?), we could accept that, ... | | We need to | 1) agree it and record the change of procedure on the wiki | 2) list the queue of committee members on the wiki. I suggest using
This all sounds like a Good Thing. No one has yet commented on my suggestion to split the process into two steps (Step 1: yes/no, Step 2: refine the details under the guidance of the package author). Simon M's response (in person) was "that's just what we were doing, only we accidentally got stuck in the weeds in Step 1". Fair enough, but is the really the model that everyone shares? (I for one did not, but then I'm not on the committee.) If so, a good response to a question in Step 1 would be "Is the question you raise relevant to acceptance/non-acceptance? If not, defer to Step 2". Without the vocabulary it's hard to make that response. So if my suggestion is really only re-phrasing what is already said on the main page http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/AddingPackages, perhaps it'd be good to clarify the latter? I for one didn't read it that way, and indeed it says nothing about Step 2. Simon _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
