haskell platform steering committee...

[Don Stewart]

simonpj:
> |  >> About participation (and I've not been great myself), I think that if
> |  >> we have a round-robin system of assigning committee members to
> |  >> proposals then it'll help to prevent the problem that we each assume
> ....
> |  >	
> |  > Yes, that sounds like a good plan.  If a committee member wants to skip
> |  > because of a conflict of interest, (also maybe particularly *wants* to
> |  > volunteer at a particular time?), we could accept that,
> ...
> |  
> |  We need to
> |  1) agree it and record the change of procedure on the wiki
> |  2) list the queue of committee members on the wiki. I suggest using
> 
> This all sounds like a Good Thing.   
> 
> No one has yet commented on my suggestion to split the process into
> two steps (Step 1: yes/no, Step 2: refine the details under the
> guidance of the package author).  Simon M's response (in person) was
> "that's just what we were doing, only we accidentally got stuck in the
> weeds in Step 1".  Fair enough, but is the really the model that
> everyone shares?  (I for one did not, but then I'm not on the
> committee.)  If so, a good response to a question in Step 1 would be
> "Is the question you raise relevant to acceptance/non-acceptance? If
> not, defer to Step 2".  Without the vocabulary it's hard to make that
> response.
> 

I think clearly splitting into yes/no, then review, may help focus the
discussion. This seems like a good modification.

-- Don