Re: New CLC proposal process
Oleg Grenrus <[email protected]> Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:53:55 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.haskell.libraries |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In that analogy though, when a private property is redeemed, the public pays for that, and then owns and develops it further. You just enjoy the fame of your great-grand-ancestors. - Oleg On 3.11.2021 11.43, Andreas Abel wrote: > > What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core > library". Can non-core libraries become core? And vice versa? What's > the criterion? > > As a human settlement evolves and grows, the need for more > coordination and governance arises. Maybe one of my > great-grand-ancestors build and maintained a road from his farm to a > shed. But over the centuries both the farm and the shed evolved into > villages, and the once private road is now essential for the lives of > many. So the community will assume ownership of the once private road. > > In the same way, a "state of Haskell" is now emerging, and we cannot > just rely on private maintenance of packages that are essential to the > Haskell ecosystem. > > What a criterion could be? For a start, the order of magnitude on how > many live packages rely on a certain package. > > --Andreas > > On 2021-11-03 10:17, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote: >> >> | These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into >> haskell >> | is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers >> | without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea. >> >> I'm not much involved in these changes, but reading [1] it says >> >> As a collective entity CLC owns, but does not >> maintain so-called Core Libraries >> >> So it sounds as if the CLC will continue to play the role of "the >> body that connects them", while still giving autonomy for the >> individual core libraries themselves to their respective >> maintainers. That sounds OK to me, doesn't it? >> >> The doc also says that if a core-library maintainer becomes >> unresponsive, the CLC will seek another. >> >> What's not so clear to me is what makes a library into a "Core >> library". Can non-core libraries become core? And vice versa? >> What's the criterion? I suppose it could simply be historical, but >> that seems less than ideal. >> >> I welcome the CLC reboot, especially having a process so that we know >> what issues are in play, and what decisions have been taken. >> >> Simon >> >> [1] https://github.com/haskell/core-libraries-committee >> >> PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which >> point [email protected] will cease to work. Use >> [email protected] instead. (For now, it just forwards to >> [email protected].) >> >> | -----Original Message----- >> | From: Libraries <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Julian >> | Ospald >> | Sent: 02 November 2021 18:40 >> | To: Andrew Lelechenko <[email protected]> >> | Cc: [email protected] >> | Subject: Re: New CLC proposal process >> | >> | Well, >> | >> | this confirms my disappointment. >> | >> | Wasn't the intention of a reboot to fix the disengagement of the >> | current CLC? >> | >> | From reading this thread, my impression is rather that this >> | disengagement has been formalized in the form of a proposal process >> | and a statement that the "Core libraries comittee" is no longer >> | responsible for the "Core libraries", which I find rather odd. >> | >> | It is my personal impression that the community wants an engaged CLC >> | that is able to moderate discussions, help with projects related to >> | the core libraries and possibly make decisions that are entirely >> | technical and bear no political nuances. >> | >> | These core libraries are the first thing everyone getting into >> haskell >> | is going to interact with. Having a fragmented set of maintainers >> | without a body that connects them sounds like a terrible idea. >> | >> | Cheers, >> | Julian >> | >> | >> | On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Andrew Lelechenko wrote: >> | > 1. On contrary, we narrowed CLC from 9 to 6 members to make it more >> | manageable. >> | > >> | > 2. CLC was incapable to deal with wider ecosystem issues for years. >> | It is better not to nourish false hopes. >> | > >> | > I believe in "Make each committee do one thing well". CLC's primary >> | and undivided responsibility is `base` and, as witnessed by a huge >> | backlog, even this single thing was handled below expectations. It's >> | not like we are in a good position to accept additional, wider >> | responsibilities. >> | > >> | > Remember that "core libraries" is an abstract moniker without much >> | consistency: e. g., before very recent `text` was not core, and it >> | includes `mtl`, but not `transformers`, and does not include >> | `containers`. So AFAIU CLC was never a correct body for >> ecosystem-wide >> | changes. >> | > >> | > (FWIW I'm hugely interested in AFPP and happy to help in my >> personal >> | > capacity) >> | > >> | > Best regards, >> | > Andrew >> | > >> | > > On 31 Oct 2021, at 09:49, Julian Ospald <[email protected]> >> | wrote: >> | > > >> | > > That sounds rather disappointing to me. >> | > > >> | > > So what has been done to reboot the CLC is: >> | > > >> | > > 1. add more people and >> | > > 2. narrow the scope and offload ecosystem issues to the Haskell >> | > > Foundation? >> | > > >> | > > I've been trying to get input from the CLC for the past year >> on an >> | > > issue that affects potentially all of core libraries and I don't >> | > > think it's feasible to contact all of the maintainers isolated. >> | > > >> | > > Does that mean CLC won't assist me in contacting core library >> | > > maintainers and moderating a discussion? >> | > > >> | > > >> | > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 12:23:57AM +0100, Andrew Lelechenko >> wrote: >> | > >> As >> | > >> >> | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg >> | > >> ithub.com%2Fhaskell%2Fcore-libraries- >> | committee%2Fblob%2Fmain%2FREAD >> | > >> >> | ME.md&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e >> | > >> >> | 95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63771 >> | > >> >> | 4752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV >> | > >> >> | 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bSfoLPWt2rMe >> | > >> P1mMkImk2U5jOM39BI%2FBDNtHisaKeIY%3D&reserved=0 >> | > >> says, CLC owns, but does not maintain core libraries as long as >> | > >> they are kept in order by appointed maintainers. If you find a >> | core >> | > >> library abandoned and neglected, raise an issue with CLC. >> | > >> >> | > >> Otherwise proposals affecting core libraries should be discussed >> | > >> with respective maintainers first. They can seek CLC opinion on >> | > >> controversial changes, but are not obliged to. >> | > >> >> | > >> I suppose HF Tech Track could be a helpful body to ask a >> | > >> non-binding opinion on changes with a wider scope. >> | > >> >> | > >> Best regards, >> | > >> Andrew >> | > >> >> | > >> >> | > >> On 31 Oct 2021, at 00:08, Julian Ospald <[email protected]> >> | wrote: >> | > >> >> | > >> Do I understand correctly that the CLC only governs base now? >> | > >> >> | > >> If not, where does one raise other issues that potentially >> | affect core >> | > >> libraries? >> | > >> >> | > >> On October 30, 2021 8:13:18 PM UTC, Andrew Lelechenko < >> | > >> [email protected]> wrote: >> | > >> >> | > >> >> | > >> I'm happy to announce that Core Libraries Committee has >> | completed >> | > >> post-election reboot and now has a new home at >> | >> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith >> | ub.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0 >> | >> e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6377147 >> | >> 52441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz >> | IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PV%2BwQ3dDsgZsFB%2FJ >> | gTvCJ6%2BnaMCLY0pxWmG2GrOuTrI%3D&reserved=0 >> | > >> haskell/core-libraries-committee and a new GitHub-based >> | process: https: >> | > >> //github.com/haskell/core-libraries- >> | committee/blob/main/PROPOSALS.md. >> | > >> >> | > >> From now on proposals to change base should be raised as >> | GitHub issues >> | > >> instead of emails to libraries@. >> | > >> >> | > >> Best regards, >> | > >> Andrew >> | > >> >> | > >> >> | > >> | _______________________________________________ >> | Libraries mailing list >> | [email protected] >> | >> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail. >> | haskell.org%2Fcgi- >> | bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flibraries&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40micr >> | >> osoft.com%7Cf8f41ef7b86e4c0e95da08d99e30436c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 >> | >> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637714752441971356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo >> | iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000& >> | ;sdata=eaBTod9nh0hgY6vBatTLNYSd1vfPTNY8LKDd89wmyy0%3D&reserved=0 >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries