See a typo? Have a suggestion? Edit this page on Github

Last month, I clarified some parts of the SLURP proposal. I'm intentionally not getting into the SLURP proposal itself here, if you missed that episode, don't worry about it. One of the outcomes of that blog post was that I shared some of the requests I had made in private that ultimately led to the SLURP proposal.

A single comment in a mega-thread on Github is hardly a good place to write down these requests, however, and it seems like there's no progress on them. I'm going to instead put down these ideas here, with a bit more explanation, and a few more ideas that have popped up since then.

(If you really want to, feel free to see the context of my original comment.)

These points should be made in some kind of more official forum, but:

I'm honestly not sure where that forum is I don't believe the official forums we typically use for discussions of community infrastructure are nearly visible enough to most community members

So I'll start the conversation here, and later we can move it to the right place.

PVP adherence is optional

I would like to see some kind of statement on Hackage that says something like, "PVP adherence is recommended, but not required. You are free to upload a package even if it does not conform to the PVP." Which I realize is in fact exactly what the current policy is, but in many discussions, this was unclear to people. And have a clear sentence to be quoted when online discussions get heated would be useful. Without something like this, I believe that we will continue having regular online flamewars about the PVP, which is the biggest thing I've been trying to get to stop over the past few years.

Hackage Trustee guidelines

Going along with this, I would like to request a change to the Hackage Trustee guidelines (or whatever the appropriate term is), namely that it is not appropriate to PVP police on social media. Sending PRs and opening issues: totally acceptable. Emails to authors: totally acceptable. If an author requests that these stop: they must stop. Publicly criticizing an author for not following the PVP: unacceptable. I do realize that enforcing a policy on how people behave personally is difficult. But I'd be happy to see the change even if it wasn't easily enforceable.

Downstream projects

Private discussions tried to achieve some kind of technical policy which would avoid breakage to Stackage and Stack. It seems like those private discussions did not reach any conclusion. However, regardless of any technical policy that is put in place, I would request simple goal be stated:

GHC, Hackage, and Cabal will strive to meet the needs of commonly used downstream projects, including but not limited to Stackage, Stack, and Nix.

I'm not asking for any demands of compatibility or testing, simply a stated policy that "it works with cabal-install, that's all that matters" is not a sufficient response.

Maintainer guidelines

There have been a number of issues and pull requests recently where contributors to some infrastructure projects have been discouraged by the unclear process for getting their changes included upstream. See, as examples:

More generally, there is an ongoing culture in some places of goals/agendas/plans being made privately and not shared, which leads to an inability of people outside of an inner circle to contribute. See, for example:

I would like to recommend some maintainer guidelines be put in place for any core Haskell packages and projects. (What constitutes "core" could definitely be up for debate as well.) I'd like to see some rules like:

Plans for significant changes must start as an issue in an issue tracker (see Gabriel's golden rule)

Plans for major changes should have a mention in a more public forum than an issue tracker. As a concrete example: the newly added ^>= operator has significant impacts on how downstream projects like Stackage interact with dependency bounds, but no public comment period was granted to provide input before the 2.0 release. (And even post release, as referenced above, the full plan has not been revealed.)

operator has significant impacts on how downstream projects like Stackage interact with dependency bounds, but no public comment period was granted to provide input before the 2.0 release. (And even post release, as referenced above, the full plan has not been revealed.) Pull requests which are rejected are given a reason for being rejected (this includes simple refusal to merge). See, for example, hackage-security #206.

There are likely many other guidelines we could come up with, some more onerous than others. I encourage others to recommend other ideas too. One possible source of inspiration for this could be the maintainer communication advice I wrote up a few years ago.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.