Add etiquette section

[hasufell]

The motivation to add this section is #314 where I experienced the constant attempts at shutting down alternative design discussions as rude and unproductive to the proposal process.

[hasufell]

Any opinions?

@angerman @parsonsmatt @velveteer @TeofilC @Daniel-Diaz @ChickenProp @noughtmare @mpscholten @doyougnu

[Daniel-Diaz]

I find suggesting improvements via alternative solutions is both productive and on-topic. The first proposed solution to a problem might not be the best one (using "best" here loosely, as it may be subjective).

+1 from me

[TeofilC]

+1

[ChickenProp]

I agree with the text. "Here are some other ways we might get the benefits you're hoping to get from this" should be considered on topic.

Has something like this happened more than once? We probably don't want a practice of "every time a proposer is kind of rude in a new way, we write about it in the README". But this also doesn't feel like the kind of weirdly specific thing that's never going to come up again. So overall I'm fairly neutral on whether this deserves explicit mention.

[Bodigrim]

Has something like this happened more than once?

It's been a recurring topic, although not always explicit. The thing is that by default proposers feel like they must address (and refute) each and every counterproposal raised. This indeed would not be fair: it's much easier to hypothesize about a potential alternative or generalization than offer time and work to implement one. So people started to ask readers not to raise alternatives.

Thus this text which clarifies that a) a proposer can politely ignore alternative designs, b) but discussing alternatives is ontopic and welcome.

[ChickenProp]

Nod, +1 then.

[noughtmare]

+1

Perhaps we could add that CLC members should follow the guidelines for respectful communication.

[hasufell]

Perhaps we could add that CLC members should follow the guidelines for respectful communication.

I'm not a huge fan of the wording, also see haskellfoundation/haskellfoundation.github.io#463

[tomjaguarpaw]

The CLC has already affiliated to the HF, and thus has signed up to the guidelines for respectful communication: https://haskell.foundation/affiliates/

[noughtmare]

@hasufell it seems everybody agrees, so your proposed change might just be one PR away.

@tomjaguarpaw ah, I did not know it applied to all affiliates. I think it would be good to state that explicitly in the etiquette section.

[Bodigrim]

There is a difference between what CLC members themselves subscribe to and what CLC imposes on proposers and commenters. This section describes etiquette for third-party participants.

[hasufell]

The CLC has already affiliated to the HF, and thus has signed up to the guidelines for respectful communication: https://haskell.foundation/affiliates/

That's also the first time I hear that and I must say that wasn't communicated well back when I was asked to be affiliated.

[hasufell]

At any rate, I split it out into two sub-sections.

[doyougnu]

I'm late to the party here but +1 for similar reasons to those expressed above

[Bodigrim]

The CLC has already affiliated to the HF

While CLC has been listed as an affiliate on HF website since the first half of 2021, there does not seem to be a single mention of HF affiliation in CLC mail list at that time (despite affiliates being required to be transparent about decisions taken). Surprisingly the earliest mention I can find is my own email on 13 Nov 2021, which suggests to discuss "Affiliation with HF" on the next meeting. Apparently in the preparation for the meeting I asked HF to write down its goals which affiliates are expected to share, but my question remains unanswered even today. It seems no specific decisions were taken at that CLC meeting; I vaguely remember that it was unclear to CLC members what kind of support HF can provide.

Frankly, HF dropped the ball on affiliation program almost immediately after its creation, it's now a rather meaningless artifact of the past.

and thus has signed up to the guidelines for respectful communication:

We two discussed it elsewhere, but for the posterity of other participants: GfRC as written is not a document a third party can easily subscribe to. E. g., it's absolutely meaningless to require HF affiliates to adhere to https://haskell.foundation/guidelines-for-respectful-communication/ - the document does not impose any responsibilities on anyone else than HF itself! The fact that HF was imposing such text on third parties irritates me a lot: surely people are supposed to read what they sign up (or suggest others to sign)?..

(Full disclosure: I am an HF board member and bear no ill will towards it)

[angerman]

+1 from me. Thank you @Bodigrim for adding all the context!

[ChickenProp]

Ah, in that case I guess the CLC members ettiquette section should be removed again?

[hasufell]

Ah, in that case I guess the CLC members ettiquette section should be removed again?

done

[noughtmare]

I'm still in favor of us to voluntarily subscribe to those guidelines, but I guess that should be a separate discussion.

We two discussed it elsewhere, but for the posterity of other participants: GfRC as written is not a document a third party can easily subscribe to. E. g., it's absolutely meaningless to require HF affiliates to adhere to https://haskell.foundation/guidelines-for-respectful-communication/ - the document does not impose any responsibilities on anyone else than HF itself! The fact that HF was imposing such text on third parties irritates me a lot: surely people are supposed to read what they sign up (or suggest others to sign)?..

@Bodigrim I don't understand why people outside of the HF would not be able to subscribe to it. The document itself says explicitly:

Rather it is a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may voluntarily follow suit.
[emphasis mine]

[hasufell]

Yes, I suggest we move the discussion around CLC subscribing to some specific "respectful communication" guideline to a separate ticket: #320

This PR is to primarily express that we welcome alternative design discussions.

[Bodigrim]

@Bodigrim I don't understand why people outside of the HF would not be able to subscribe to it. The document itself says explicitly:

Rather it is a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may voluntarily follow suit.

Anyone is welcome to "follow the suit" by adapting the text of guidelines to their structure. But simply signing up below "As members of the Haskell Foundation..." and "please contact the chair of the Foundation" barely makes any sense if you are not an HF member.

(The current wording is woefully ambiguous even for HF's own purposes: if "member of the HF" presumably means "member of the board of the HF", are HF employees including ED supposed to be excluded?)

It would be fairly trivial to adapt the text of GfRC so that it can be easily signed up by third parties: replace mentions of HF with "a group that refers to these Guidelines".