|Version 19 (modified by 7 years ago) (diff),|
Haskell 2010 Committee
- 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-chair)
- 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-chair)
- 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
The Haskell 2011 committee has not been formed yet.
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
- a chair (or a pair of co-chairs), who are responsible for editing the final language report, and for guiding the process along.
- 10-15 members
Continuity is expected to be around 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)
Process for forming the next committee
(to be decided)
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.