Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

[Francesco Ariis]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:09:56AM +0900, Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> 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.

I am pretty sure that everybody in this thread already knows, but
just to clarify how Scheme proceeded: the vote was held on the
mailing list and a template was given, like

Name:
Location:
Organisation (optional):
Contact (optional):
Vote:
Rationale:

As you would expect the quality of voting (example [1]) was much
much higher than "1 like = 1 monad".

[1] 
https://web.archive.org/web/20140601050807/http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2013-April/003310.html
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

[Matthias Fischmann]

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

Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

[Richard Eisenberg]

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Matthias Fischmann  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
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

[Matthias Fischmann]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:05:05PM -0400, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:05:05 -0400
> From: Richard Eisenberg <r...@cs.brynmawr.edu>
> To: David Luposchainsky <dluposchain...@googlemail.com>
> Cc: M Farkas-Dyck <m.farkasd...@gmail.com>, Haskell-prime Mailing List
>  <haskell-prime@haskell.org>
> Subject: Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2016, at 5:08 PM, David Luposchainsky via Haskell-prime 
> > <haskell-prime@haskell.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 open process.
> >
>
> I think having a formal process aids in transparency, something that some in 
> our community feel is lacking. I therefore think that we should indeed have a 
> formal process. If the process ends up tying our hands behind our back, then 
> we change it!
>
> I like the process suggested by M.

i agree, and would like to propose an independent ratification
process.  the following is all from me listening to people who have an
intimidating amout of experience with this.  icfp is great!  (-:

everybody can sign up to the ratification process with email and a few
lines on who they are and why they care.  once the standard is
finalized, everybody gets to vote.  nay-voters have to (are allowed
to?) submit change requests that would compell them to vote yay.

if the proposal gets 70% yays it becomes law, and nobody gets to
complain that they haven't been asked.

if the proposal falls short of the 70%, the change requests are
reviewed and negotiated into a new proposal.  this is hoped to take
less effort than the original draft, but still enough to discourage
people from frivolously opposing ideas they don't like but can live
with.

ratification is important for acceptance in the wider community.
scheme set the bar at 50% and the standard came through with 51%,
which didn't convince the nay-sayers much to embrace the it.

curious how you all feel about this-
m.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

[David Luposchainsky via Haskell-prime]

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 
open process.

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 
discussion. 

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. 

Greetings, 
David/quchen 


On 22 September 2016 19:43:12 CEST, M Farkas-Dyck  
wrote:
>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
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Re: New Github features and Haskell Prime

[M Farkas-Dyck]

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.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

New Github features and Haskell Prime

[David Luposchainsky via Haskell-prime]

Hello prime people,

Github recently added a board-style overview over tickets and small notes. I
think this is a great addition, and converted all current PRs to board items.

There is no shortage of things to be considered for Haskell Prime, and I find it
hard to think of them all. For things I’m somewhat interested in seeing a
proposal for, I created notes that are not yet tickets, but serve as a reminder
to consider them at some point.

I’d like to invite you all to add your language extensions and ideas to the 
board
in the pre-proposal column. Even if you don’t have the time to write a proposal,
someone else might see the note and decide to do so instead.

See you at https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/projects/1

Greetings,
David/quchen



-- 
My GPG keys: https://keybase.io/quchen



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime