Re: Proposal process status

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Ben Gamari wrote: > Yuras Shumovich > writes: > > > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: > > > Thanks for your comments Yuras! > > >> * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the > >> status quo? > > > > Yes, defin

Re: Proposal process status

Jack Hill writes: > Hi all, > > I'm a bit of an outsider here as I'm not involved in GHC development (but > I am interested in how it goes). I've struggled with my own desire to > avoid using proprietary software like GitHub, and the desire to work with > those who favor it, so I am interested

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 23:41, Jack Hill wrote: > Would the barrier to entry to a non-GitHub system be reduced by > using GitHub for user authentication/accounts For what it's worth, GitLab supports this[0]. You can also use Twitter, or whatever. [0]

Re: Proposal process status

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Adam Foltzer wrote: 1. Higher than necessary barrier-to-entry. For the purposes of this proposal, whether we would prefer a competing alternative is secondary to the fact that a Github account has become a very low common denominator for people wishing to participate in th

Re: Proposal process status

I really appreciate you putting so much work into this. It is very important, and I believe could do much to increase awareness of and participation in these processes. I've left most of my thoughts as line comments on the proposal document, but since discussion of platform choice is taking place

Re: Proposal process status

Alexander Berntsen writes: > On 20/07/16 19:04, Ben Gamari wrote: >> I know, it's rather frustrating. I also have fairly strong feelings >> about open-source purity, but in this case I just don't see any >> way to improve the current situation under this constraint. > > I don't think that starti

Re: Proposal process status

> 20 juli 2016 kl. 19:38 skrev amin...@gmail.com: > > > >> El 20 jul 2016, a las 12:45, Ben Gamari escribió: >> >> Iavor Diatchki writes: >> >>> Hello Ben, >>> >>> I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it >>> got buried among the rest of the e-mails. >> Indeed

Re: Proposal process status

> El 20 jul 2016, a las 12:45, Ben Gamari escribió: > > Iavor Diatchki writes: > >> Hello Ben, >> >> I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it >> got buried among the rest of the e-mails. > Indeed it seems that way. Sorry about that! > >> I think the proposal sou

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 19:04, Ben Gamari wrote: > I know, it's rather frustrating. I also have fairly strong feelings > about open-source purity, but in this case I just don't see any > way to improve the current situation under this constraint. I don't think

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 19:00, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > While I indeed sympathize with your desire to avoid proprietary, > closed software, I'd like to point out that avoiding GitHub > because it's closed has a real cost I don't value those points over my fre

Re: Proposal process status

Alexander Berntsen writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 20/07/16 11:36, Ben Gamari wrote: >> * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if >> anything? > No GitHub. In order to fully utilise GitHub, one needs to run > proprietary programs. Additio

Re: Proposal process status

> On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > On 20/07/16 11:36, Ben Gamari wrote: >> * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if >> anything? > No GitHub. In order to fully utilise GitHub, one needs to run > proprietary programs. Additionally, GitHub is pro

Re: Proposal process status

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 20/07/16 11:36, Ben Gamari wrote: > * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if > anything? No GitHub. In order to fully utilise GitHub, one needs to run proprietary programs. Additionally, GitHub is proprietary software serv

Re: Proposal process status

Iavor Diatchki writes: > Hello Ben, > > I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it > got buried among the rest of the e-mails. > Indeed it seems that way. Sorry about that! > I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how > well it will work i

Re: Proposal process status

Yuras Shumovich writes: > Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: > Thanks for your comments Yuras! >>   * Do you feel the proposed process is an improvement over the >> status quo? > > Yes, definitely. The existing process is too vague, so formalizing it > is a w

Re: Proposal process status

Hello Ben, I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it got buried among the rest of the e-mails. I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how well it will work in practice until we try it, and we should be ready to change it if needs be. Some

Re: Proposal process status

Looks like reddit is a wrong place, so I'm replicating my comment here: On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 11:36 +0200, Ben Gamari wrote: > Hello everyone, > > As you hopefully know, a few weeks ago we proposed a new process [1] > for > collecting, discussing, and deciding upon changes to GHC and its > Haske

Re: Proposal process status

> > * What would you like to see changed in the proposed process, if > anything? > *Simon Peyton Jones as Benevolent Dictator For Life (BDFL)* If the BDFL had made a simple YES/NO decision on ShortImports [1] and ArgumentDo [2], we wouldn't be here talking about process proposals, Anthony w

Proposal process status

Hello everyone, As you hopefully know, a few weeks ago we proposed a new process [1] for collecting, discussing, and deciding upon changes to GHC and its Haskell superset. While we have been happy to see a small contingent of contributors join the discussion, the number is significantly smaller t