Haskell ecosystem improvements meta-propsal

[Mike Meyer]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:45 AM Mark Lentczner <mark.lentczner at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
>
>> I've dealt with the IETF RFC process and the Python PEP process, and both
>> of them worked better than that.
>
>
> While both those are good examples of mostly working organizations
> shepherding foundational technical standard(s) along... there is one thing
> more important than their processes: Their stance. Both organizations have
> a very strong engineering discipline of keeping deployed things working
> without change. I don't think it is enough to simply model their process.
>

Well, until Python 3, anyway.

My goal wasn't to recreate the engineering discipline that deployed things
keep working without change as you upgrade the ecosystem, it's to provide a
mechanism so the community can more easily engage with the evolution of the
ecosystem. Hopefully this will make it easier for the community to move
things forward in a desirable manner. But it's a process, and leaves the
question of whether the desire is for more stability or a less stagnant
language up to the users of the process.

I don't necessarily want to model the IETF or PEP processes. Those are a
starting point. I tried to abstract the initial points out enough that the
final result could be either one of them, or something totally unrelated
that's a better fit for the Haskell community.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://projects.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-platform/attachments/20151007/757437bd/attachment-0001.htm>