On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:45 AM Mark Lentczner <mark.lentcz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: > >> I've dealt with the IETF RFC process and the Python PEP process, and both >> of them worked better than that. > > > While both those are good examples of mostly working organizations > shepherding foundational technical standard(s) along... there is one thing > more important than their processes: Their stance. Both organizations have > a very strong engineering discipline of keeping deployed things working > without change. I don't think it is enough to simply model their process. > Well, until Python 3, anyway. My goal wasn't to recreate the engineering discipline that deployed things keep working without change as you upgrade the ecosystem, it's to provide a mechanism so the community can more easily engage with the evolution of the ecosystem. Hopefully this will make it easier for the community to move things forward in a desirable manner. But it's a process, and leaves the question of whether the desire is for more stability or a less stagnant language up to the users of the process. I don't necessarily want to model the IETF or PEP processes. Those are a starting point. I tried to abstract the initial points out enough that the final result could be either one of them, or something totally unrelated that's a better fit for the Haskell community.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
