simonpj: > | >> 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. >
I think clearly splitting into yes/no, then review, may help focus the discussion. This seems like a good modification. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
