Fix imprecisions in the SIP minutes

[jvican]

No description provided.

[heathermiller]

Incorrect spelling

[odersky]

@heathermiller

I think it's fair to assume that the authors have abandoned this SIP years ago. Philipp will not work on it, Hubert will not contribute to scalac any longer (as far as I understand), Alex has moved on to other endeavors.

Maybe ping Adriaan first, to see whether he would like to keep it alive?
If not I agree we should close.

[heathermiller]

@odersky Yes, so this is what Jorge and I decided: we put in the meeting minutes what actually happened in the meeting. No rewriting of history allowed. If the list of things suggested by the reviewer are not done within the allotted time period, this SIP gets closed and postponed, according to protocol. That gives anyone, including someone from Lightbend, 3 months to volunteer implement this. If no one does, we kick it out of the queue of active SIPs because we can all agree that this isn't active if no one will carry it forward.

In general though, I believe this SIP should not have been left in active state in the first place. The reviewer suggested implementation in his list of next steps. Dmitry attended the meeting because he's assumed the role of author of this SIP; everyone has understood this to be the case. Dmitry didn't object when the reviewer listed implementation as a TODO that should happen in the next iteration. Instead, he agreed that the next iteration would be 3 months from now. I find this deceptive and disruptive to this process. Our job is to help both sides (author and core maintainers) find a way to make progress on changes to the language. The famous art of "silently failing" hinders progress.

[odersky]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Heather Miller notifications@github.com
wrote:

@odersky https://github.com/odersky Yes, so this is what Jorge and I
decided: we put in the meeting minutes what actually happened in the
meeting. No rewriting of history allowed. If the list of things suggested
by the reviewer are not done within the allotted time period, this SIP gets
closed and postponed, according to protocol. That gives anyone, including
someone from Lightbend, 3 months to volunteer implement this. If no one
does, we kick it out of the queue of active SIPs because we can all agree
that this isn't active if no one will carry it forward.

In general though, I believe this SIP should not have been left in active
state in the first place. The reviewer suggested implementation in his list
of next steps. Dmitry attended the meeting because he's assumed the role of
author of this SIP; everyone has understood this to be the case. Dmitry
didn't object when the reviewer listed implementation as a TODO that should
happen in the next iteration. Instead, he agreed that the next iteration
would be 3 months from now. I find this deceptive and disruptive to this
process. Our job is to help both sides (author and core maintainers) find a
way to make progress on changes the language. The famous art of "silently
failing" hinders progress.

We are all learning here. Fact is, this is a SIP which many people want.
Not just Dmitry but large parts of the Scala community and the Lightbend
team as well. The problem is, finding the resources to do it. It's Dmitry's
choice whether he wants to do it and I fully understand that he opts not to
do it because he has a lot of other things on this plate. I think there
might have been a misunderstanding / ambiguity at the meeting, but I do not
recall him having said unambiguously "I will implement this in scalac" (in
fact I would have been surprised if he had said that). So if you think we
want to keep to the original deadline of three months for retabling and
closing if no-one else steps forward, fine.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#544 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAwlVqglLAHOm_Iy94wrkx0DvV6HEzIGks5qV5X7gaJpZM4JNWA_
.

Martin Odersky
EPFL and Lightbend