| > * Yes, if the HP committee doesn't want a geocaching library under any
| circumstances, you are free to say "unconditionally no". Step 1 is fully
under the
| control of the HP committee. Step 2 is fully under the control of the author.
| That's the whole idea!
|
| That's the problem, there is no HP committee. There is a HP steering
| committee but that is supposed not to make any decisions, only steer
| discussions.
Oh, I should have known that but I didn't. Debate is good, but large groups
are bad at taking decisions. My suggestion would be
* the community debates
* the committee decides, informed by that debate
But I now understand that would be another change
| I worry that Simon's suggestion might swing things too far in the
| other direction. There is the danger that after the first stage there
| is no way for reviewers to get some change made because the proposers
| know the package is going in, so ultimately they don't have to do
| anything.
Yes, that's right. My sense is that the bar is too high at the moment, and we
are not trusting package authors enough to take thoughtful account of feedback.
As Don keeps reminding us, we do not seek perfection. If something is
important, identify it as a condition C in Stage 1. After that, trust the
package author.
(Maybe there is an exception mechanism if the committee subsequently realises
"Oh, we did not realise X and that is so serious that we have to recant our
earlier decision". But the bar on such recantation should be high.)
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-platform mailing list
Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org
http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
