Version 1 (modified by dons, 7 years ago)


We've had one difficult proposal attempt to go through the Package Addition process. Feedback from that effort is gathered below:

  • I think that the "please speak up only if you dissent" model is quite counterproductive. It gives the strong (but, I hope, incorrect) impression that those who care are all dissenters.
  • Too much bikeshedding took place, relative to the overall goals of the Haskell Platform (to be comprehensive, to grow, and to be high quality).
  • The existing libraries are often in a poorer state than the new libraries, yet the new libraries are possibly subject to blocking objections, despite those flaws existing in the current libraries.
  • It is unclear on what issues people should raise blocking objections, and when conditional acceptance is suitable.
  • The steering committee didn't play an active role in herding discussion, or communicating expectations.

Possible actions

  • Push on, as we get as a community review more things, the cultural norms will become clearer, and the mechanism more efficient.
  • Limit the scope and time for reviewers (e.g. an opt-in list like Haskell Prime)
  • Explicitly state new norms for when something may be significant enough to be a valid reason to block.