On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:34:02AM -0400, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:02 -0400 > From: Richard Eisenberg <r...@cs.brynmawr.edu> > To: Matthias Fischmann <m...@zerobuzz.net> > Cc: Haskell-prime Mailing List <haskell-prime@haskell.org> > Subject: Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime > > > > On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Matthias Fischmann <m...@zerobuzz.net> wrote: > > > > i agree, and would like to propose an independent ratification > > process. > > At the risk of sounding exclusionary, I wonder what the goal of defining the > committee is if the larger community can vote on each proposal. As I > understood it, the committee has voting rights, while the larger community > has viewing and commentary rights. > > We *do* most certainly value wide input. But voting is quite sensitive. In > particular, you recommend a threshold of 70% before something is accepted. > 70% of what? Of votes? Who is eligible to vote? And how do we publicize a > vote? When is it held? What if that period of time is a big holiday in some > country? Etc. It all seems to be a can of worms. > > Richard
hi richard, thanks for your reply. i don't have a strong opinion and there may well be more productive uses of the committee's time, so i'm happy to drop idea. just to be clarify for those who are still interested: i'm not suggesting we should *change* the process as much as *extend* it. once the committee has finalized haskell-prime, ask everybody (literally everybody) for a boolean. this gives the community a way to formally support the outcome in addition to people and process. and the committee has an incentive to take community feedback serious. (which, as a downside, also means it's distracting even before the finalized standard is out.) anyway. never mind. (: thanks, matthias _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
