Contribution vs quality, and a few notes on the Platform process

[Don Stewart]

igloo:
> > > 
> > > Steering committee, I think we need to resolve this question before we
> > > can make progress. How should we proceed?
> > 
> > What is the question?
> 
> Should the HP attempt to provide:
> 
>     A set of packages that are popular and meet certain quality
>     standards
> 
> or:
> 
>     A set of packages that are popular, meet certain quality standards
>     and have a consistent API
> 
> ?
> 
> > I don't think libraries@ has a mandate to change the current HP goals
> 
> Surely someone must have a mandate to change them?

It  was unclear to me what goals of the HP were being suggested to
change. It appears that the mission of the HP is not in question here,
which was my concern.

> 
> Also, what is the current goal? I thought it was the second one, but I
> don't know whether or not I am in a minority.

The goals are, as stated in the original position statement by me and
Duncan:

    "a complete Haskell development environment, batteries included."

More specifically (from "Haskell: Batteries Included"), the project should
produce:

    * high quality libraries.
    * commonly-needed functionality
    * convenient packaging for many operating systems
    * a set of clear criteria for when packages are accepted

So this proposal would be to determine to what extent a "consistent API" is one
of the criteria.

Now, "consistent APIs" seems desirable, although maintainers have full rights
to modify the APIs as they see fit, as long as they follow the PVP (once their
package is included). That suggests to me that we may only recommend APIs
guidelines -- not require them.

-- Don