haskell platform steering committee...

[Ian Lynagh]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:41:11AM -0800, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> 
> I think clearly splitting into yes/no, then review, may help focus the
> discussion. This seems like a good modification.

What are valid grounds for "no" in step 1?

Is it just "Geocaching is too specialised. We will not accept a
geocaching library under any circumstances"?

So if someone thinks the foo package has just one flaw that should be
fixed, but that it should not go in unless that is fixed, do they say
"yes" in step 1 and then argue for conditional acceptance in step 2?

And if someone thinks the foo package is buggy and the API is poorly
designed (essentially that it needs more-or-less a rewrite), but that a
package doing foo would be a valuable addition to the HP, then should
they say "yes" in step 1 and then argue for a large number of conditions
in step 2?


Thanks
Ian