wiki:Committee

Version 21 (modified by malcolm.wallace@…, 4 years ago) (diff)

the new 2011 committee

Haskell 2010 Committee (retired)

  • Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au>
  • John Goerzen <jgoerzen at complete.org>
  • Bastiaan Heeren <bastiaan at cs.uu.nl>
  • Isaac Jones
  • John Launchbury
  • Andres Löh <loeh at iai.uni-bonn.de>
  • Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li>
  • Simon Marlow (co-editor)
  • John Meacham <john at repetae.net>
  • Ravi Nanavati <ravi at bluespec.com>
  • Henrik Nilsson <nhn at cs.nott.ac.uk>
  • Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk>
  • Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
  • Don Stewart <dons at cse.unsw.edu.au> (co-editor)
  • Audrey Tang <autrijus at gmail.com>
  • Simon Thompson <S.J.Thompson at kent.ac.uk>
  • Malcolm Wallace <Malcolm.Wallace at cs.york.ac.uk>
  • Stephanie Weirich <sweirich at cis.upenn.edu>
  • Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk>
  • Martin Sulzmann <martin.sulzmann@…>

Haskell 2011 Committee

  • Carlos Camarão
  • Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk>
  • Atze Dijkstra
  • Iavor Diatchki
  • Simon Marlow
  • John Meacham <john at repetae.net>
  • Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com>
  • Bryan O'Sullivan
  • Ganesh Sittampalam
  • Malcolm Wallace <Malcolm.Wallace at cs.york.ac.uk> (chair)

About the committee

Each committee is formed for the period of one year, starting after the announcement of one language revision (typically October-November), and lasting until the formation of the next committee.

The committee consists of

  • 1-2 editors, who are responsible for editing the final language report, and for guiding the process along.
  • 10-15 members

Continuity is expected to be no more than 50% from year to year, and a particular member should participate in no more than two consecutive committees.

The committee should represent each class of stakeholders with roughly equal weight. These classes are

  • Implementers (compiler/tool writers)
  • Commercial users
  • Non-commercial users (e.g. open source)
  • Academic users (using Haskell in research)
  • Teachers
  • Authors

In addition, members of the committee should be long-standing users with a deep knowledge of Haskell, and preferably with experience of language design. The committee should contain at least some members with a comprehensive knowledge of the dark corners of the Haskell language design, who can offer perspective and rationale for existing choices and comment on the ramifications of making different choices.

Process for forming the next committee

There will be a short period in which open nominations for new committee members will be solicited from the community on the haskell-prime@… mailing list. Self-nominations are allowed, and existing committee members can put themselves forward for the following year's committee, provided they don't serve more than two years in succession.

Following nominations, the existing committee will choose the core of a new committee, consisting of up to 10 members, up to 2 of whom are editors. Further committee members may be appointed by the core committee during the following months leading up to the committee discussion, based on the need for expertise in areas related to important proposals (which may in some cases mean appointing the proposer themselves, at the discretion of the committee).

Responsibilities

There are two main responsibilities of committee members:

  • To participate in the development of proposals, including taking ownership of proposals, and contributing to the development of other proposals. While in principle proposal ownership and contribution are not limited to committee members, in practice it is expected that the driving force behind most proposals will be provided by committee members.
  • To participate in the decision process where the set of complete proposals are considered for inclusion in the next language revision.

It is hard to put a figure on the amount of time that a committee member is expected to spend on these activities, but a rough estimate would be 2-3 hours per week. During the decision process, which lasts about 2 weeks (but may take a bit longer for certain proposals), committee members should participate actively in the discussion, spending some time every day on this.