Also sounds good to me. Thanks for laboriously breathing life back into this process! I will comment on the proposal sometime this week.
Richard > On Nov 4, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Mario Blažević <blama...@ciktel.net> wrote: > > Four weeks having passed since the previous discussion with no objections, I > have now merged the content of the Haskell Report > > from https://github.com/haskell/haskell-report > > into https://github.com/haskell/rfcs > > > To remind everybody again, the point of this move was to enable adding an > actionable change to the report to every RFC. From this point on, any > proposal that passes the full process to becoming accepted can update the > report by the simple act of getting merged. > > In order to test this process, over a year ago I've picked and submitted > the least controversial RFC I could find, namely > https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/17. There has been no objection to the > proposal. In fact there has been no comment whatsoever, but I suppose that's > beside the point. So today I have moved the RFC to the "Last Call" column > (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/projects/1) as the first and only proposal > to gain that awesome status. > > It's not at all clear what should happen to the RFC between this point > and it getting merged, but I'm determined to test drive the process with it. > This is my plan: > > 1. I'm going to add update the report with a patch to the report content, then > > 2. wait another two weeks for any objection before > > 3. moving the proposal from the Last Call to the Ready for Report status, then > > 4. announce that the proposal is Ready for Report and > > 5. wait another two weeks for the full approval, then finally > > 6. merge the RFC. > > > The only flaw in my cunning plan above is defining what constitutes "the > full approval". The committee being rather ... disengaged and scattered, > there is little hope of getting 50% of votes from all its members. The > criteria of no raised objection, which I've used so far, seems much too lax > for a full approval. I think the only reasonable fair criteria of success > would be a public and unanimous approval by at least N committee members. I > have no idea what N should be, but I know that if this test proposal can't > garner N approvals, no proposal will ever pass the hurdle. > > To make it plain, I suggest we take the number of committee members that > comment on the test proposal as the maximum bound of N. I do hope max(N) > 1. > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
