On 11/08/2010 07:37 AM, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On 8 November 2010 09:23, Isaac Dupree<m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:Incidentally, who is actually active in the steering committee?Your list below is righthttp://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Members#SteeringCommittee http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/AddingPackages#History ... That was handy but not essential. Don pointed out how we'd not been doing our job and since Thomas and I were there at the time...
?Perhaps I'm missing an email or three somewhere, but my recollection of the original steering committee formation was that we never came to any consensus on the mission, role, authority, or responsibility of the steering committee. In fact, I thought the only thing we agreed on was to stay as far out of the HP package nomination process as possible. After which I heard nothing, and frankly I'd assumed that the whole steering committee concept was abandoned.
Is this not the case?
So as I mentioned in my recent reply to Bryan about the process, I think it would help if we, the committee members, took the active role in discussions that we originally intended. To do that I suggest that we assign a steering committee member to each new proposal when it is first proposed. It would be the responsibility of that committee member to do the various things set out in the proposal process document that we all wrote.
Really? I admit I've only been skimming the latest discussions, but it seems that the only advantage of someone moderating the debate would be (possibly) getting to gridlock earlier.
That seems reasonable. Although: Who makes the "tricky issue" declaration? Who votes?We should also at some point consider the issue of using voting to resolve particularly tricky issues
- Adam
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
