I did not plan this out too much. I would say let's use common sense rather
than setting up processes. The columns are to give viewers an overview for our
Anyway, here's the gist behind the columns when I created them:
Pre-proposed is for things nobody cared enough about to write the proposal. The
idea is that pull requests/proposals should be created from each.
Proposed is where things start being tracked as actual proposals with rst files
and what have you. These are invitations for everyone to participate in the
In discussion is to single out the tickets with the most traffiic for those who
want to get am overview of current events. When the discussion stalls the
ticket might move back a column.
Last call means that, ideally, every committee member (and whoever else is
interested) should do a final proof-read of the proposal. Things in this column
are considered good and final by the participants in the discussion before, and
if there is no objection, that's what goes into the report.
The last column is to show what made it into the report pipeline for some time
for our less frequent readers.
On 22 September 2016 19:43:12 CEST, M Farkas-Dyck <m.farkasd...@gmail.com>
>I see we have a "Last call" column. What are its semantics? What are
>the criteria for moving an RFC into it? Once there, can the RFC be
>moved back out? Has it a time limit when an RFC there must be either
>merged or closed? How shall we choose whether to merge or close?
>If no one has an idea yet, i propose this:
>• A Committee member can move to nominate an RFC by making a comment
>to that effect. If no comments have been made on the RFC since,
>another member may then move the RFC to "Last call".
>• Once in "Last call", an RFC remains for 1 week while further
>comments can be made and committee members cast votes for either
>"Merge" or "Close". Open question: shall we vote openly in the
>comments or by some other system TBD?
>• At the end of the voting period, if a majority of the committee (not
>merely of those who voted) votes to merge or close, we do so; else we
>move the RFC back to "In discussion".
>I formulated this procedure so no one member could push an agenda
>unilaterally, but to break the stall in progress i have been feeling
>here. Alternative proposals welcome.
Sent from my cellphone. Please excuse my brevity.
Haskell-prime mailing list