Re: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 07:27:35AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: I think that's an excellent idea. I think there should be a web page describing what the committee does, who is in it, how to contact it, etc. Yes, definitely. I've created: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell.org_committee That doubtless isn't perfect, but I'm sure it can be refined and clarified by the first committee as necessary. Well the committee also be responsible for the haskell.org web site? The site will shortly be moving to a server paid for with haskell.org funds, so yes, in the general policy sense (e.g. they might be asked to decide if job ads should be allowed on h.o), but they would not be responsible for the day-to-day running (e.g. configuring the wiki, or removing spam from it). Five might be a little small. OK, I've made it 7. I've also incorporated your other suggestions into the above page. Thanks Ian ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
2010/9/6 Manuel M T Chakravarty c...@cse.unsw.edu.au: Ian Lynagh: To fix this problem, we propose that we create a haskell.org committee, which is responsible for answering these sorts of questions, although for some questions they may choose to poll the community at large if they think appropriate. [..] Unfortunately, this gives us a bootstrapping problem, so we suggest that the initial committee be chosen from open nominations by some of the people who currently de-facto end up making the decisions currently: Duncan Coutts, Isaac Jones, Ian Lynagh, Don Stewart and Malcolm Wallace. These 5 would still be elligible to nominate themselves. Two of the initial members will stand down after one year, and two after two years, in order to bootstrap rolling membership turnover. Good plan! Manuel Seems very good, Thu ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
RE: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
Ian et al | To fix this problem, we propose that we create a haskell.org | committee, which is responsible for answering these sorts of questions, | although for some questions they may choose to poll the community at | large if they think appropriate. I think that's an excellent idea. I think there should be a web page describing what the committee does, who is in it, how to contact it, etc. I'm sure you intended that. An annual statement of what money came in and went out would be good practice. Well the committee also be responsible for the haskell.org web site? | We suggest that the committee be composed of 5 representatives from the | community, with committee members standing down after at most 3 years. | Each year the committee will appoint one of their members to be the chair. It's usually helpful to establish a rotation so that everyone knows who is going to stand down when, and to arrange that there isn't a sudden glut one year. Document the stand-down dates on the committee web page. In my experience, everyone forgets! Five might be a little small. It might be good to allow for a person to be re-elected for a second term if they are willing. It's a good principle to have rotation, but a pity to lose willing and experienced talent. But six years is enough. | As membership of the Haskell community is not well-defined, and voting | would potentially be open to abuse if anyone were able to vote, we | propose that the committee should choose their replacements from open | nominations. I agree with the problem, and I think your proposed solution may do for now, but it's obviously not a robust solution. I trust you five, but in three years time you may all have stood down! A possible solution would be to have an electoral college of people entitled to vote. It should be easy to become a member of the college: any track record of contributions to the Haskell community, including constructive contributions to Haskell Cafe, would be enough. Then the college can elect the committee. It's debatable whether this is worth the bother at this point. Maybe it would be enough to document on the committee page that we don't regard the nomination process as robust, and if any concern arises we will consider something more substantial. Simon ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell-cafe] RE: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | As membership of the Haskell community is not well-defined, and voting | would potentially be open to abuse if anyone were able to vote, we | propose that the committee should choose their replacements from open | nominations. I agree with the problem, and I think your proposed solution may do for now, but it's obviously not a robust solution. I trust you five, but in three years time you may all have stood down! A possible solution would be to have an electoral college of people entitled to vote. It should be easy to become a member of the college: any track record of contributions to the Haskell community, including constructive contributions to Haskell Cafe, would be enough. Then the college can elect the committee. It's debatable whether this is worth the bother at this point. Maybe it would be enough to document on the committee page that we don't regard the nomination process as robust, and if any concern arises we will consider something more substantial. FWIW, the IETF faces the same situation, and addresses it through a Nominating Committee (NomCom) mechanism, which for the most part has worked well for many years (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3777). #g ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
2010/9/6 Manuel M T Chakravarty c...@cse.unsw.edu.au: Ian Lynagh: To fix this problem, we propose that we create a haskell.org committee, which is responsible for answering these sorts of questions, although for some questions they may choose to poll the community at large if they think appropriate. [..] Unfortunately, this gives us a bootstrapping problem, so we suggest that the initial committee be chosen from open nominations by some of the people who currently de-facto end up making the decisions currently: Duncan Coutts, Isaac Jones, Ian Lynagh, Don Stewart and Malcolm Wallace. These 5 would still be elligible to nominate themselves. Two of the initial members will stand down after one year, and two after two years, in order to bootstrap rolling membership turnover. Good plan! Manuel Seems very good, Thu ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] RE: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
Ian et al | To fix this problem, we propose that we create a haskell.org | committee, which is responsible for answering these sorts of questions, | although for some questions they may choose to poll the community at | large if they think appropriate. I think that's an excellent idea. I think there should be a web page describing what the committee does, who is in it, how to contact it, etc. I'm sure you intended that. An annual statement of what money came in and went out would be good practice. Well the committee also be responsible for the haskell.org web site? | We suggest that the committee be composed of 5 representatives from the | community, with committee members standing down after at most 3 years. | Each year the committee will appoint one of their members to be the chair. It's usually helpful to establish a rotation so that everyone knows who is going to stand down when, and to arrange that there isn't a sudden glut one year. Document the stand-down dates on the committee web page. In my experience, everyone forgets! Five might be a little small. It might be good to allow for a person to be re-elected for a second term if they are willing. It's a good principle to have rotation, but a pity to lose willing and experienced talent. But six years is enough. | As membership of the Haskell community is not well-defined, and voting | would potentially be open to abuse if anyone were able to vote, we | propose that the committee should choose their replacements from open | nominations. I agree with the problem, and I think your proposed solution may do for now, but it's obviously not a robust solution. I trust you five, but in three years time you may all have stood down! A possible solution would be to have an electoral college of people entitled to vote. It should be easy to become a member of the college: any track record of contributions to the Haskell community, including constructive contributions to Haskell Cafe, would be enough. Then the college can elect the committee. It's debatable whether this is worth the bother at this point. Maybe it would be enough to document on the committee page that we don't regard the nomination process as robust, and if any concern arises we will consider something more substantial. Simon ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] RE: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | As membership of the Haskell community is not well-defined, and voting | would potentially be open to abuse if anyone were able to vote, we | propose that the committee should choose their replacements from open | nominations. I agree with the problem, and I think your proposed solution may do for now, but it's obviously not a robust solution. I trust you five, but in three years time you may all have stood down! A possible solution would be to have an electoral college of people entitled to vote. It should be easy to become a member of the college: any track record of contributions to the Haskell community, including constructive contributions to Haskell Cafe, would be enough. Then the college can elect the committee. It's debatable whether this is worth the bother at this point. Maybe it would be enough to document on the committee page that we don't regard the nomination process as robust, and if any concern arises we will consider something more substantial. FWIW, the IETF faces the same situation, and addresses it through a Nominating Committee (NomCom) mechanism, which for the most part has worked well for many years (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3777). #g ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
Dear Haskellers, In recent years, haskell.org has started to receive assets, e.g. money from Google Summer Of Code, donations for Hackathons, and a Sparc machine for use in GHC development. We have also started spending this money: on the community server, on a server to take over hosting haskell.org itself, and on the haskell.org domain name. There is also interest in running fundraising drives for specific things such as Hackathon sponsorship and hosting fees. However, it is not currently clear who is responsible for determining what the haskell.org money should be spent on, or what are and are not acceptable uses of the domain name and hardware. To fix this problem, we propose that we create a haskell.org committee, which is responsible for answering these sorts of questions, although for some questions they may choose to poll the community at large if they think appropriate. We suggest that the committee be composed of 5 representatives from the community, with committee members standing down after at most 3 years. Each year the committee will appoint one of their members to be the chair. As membership of the Haskell community is not well-defined, and voting would potentially be open to abuse if anyone were able to vote, we propose that the committee should choose their replacements from open nominations. Unfortunately, this gives us a bootstrapping problem, so we suggest that the initial committee be chosen from open nominations by some of the people who currently de-facto end up making the decisions currently: Duncan Coutts, Isaac Jones, Ian Lynagh, Don Stewart and Malcolm Wallace. These 5 would still be elligible to nominate themselves. Two of the initial members will stand down after one year, and two after two years, in order to bootstrap rolling membership turnover. We would love to hear feedback from you about this proposal, so that we can see whether the proposal, or something similar, has consensus amongst the community! A related issue is that haskell.org does not currently exist as a legal entity. We also hope to solve that problem, but we are still gathering information so that the community can make an informed decision, so I won't say more about that for now. Thanks Ian ___ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] Proposal: Form a haskell.org committee
Ian Lynagh: To fix this problem, we propose that we create a haskell.org committee, which is responsible for answering these sorts of questions, although for some questions they may choose to poll the community at large if they think appropriate. [..] Unfortunately, this gives us a bootstrapping problem, so we suggest that the initial committee be chosen from open nominations by some of the people who currently de-facto end up making the decisions currently: Duncan Coutts, Isaac Jones, Ian Lynagh, Don Stewart and Malcolm Wallace. These 5 would still be elligible to nominate themselves. Two of the initial members will stand down after one year, and two after two years, in order to bootstrap rolling membership turnover. Good plan! Manuel ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
