Add minutes for the SIP meeting in October 2016 #629

jvican · 2016-11-17T17:50:28Z

I will update the rules for the process (with an example) and the status of the
proposals in another PR.

heathermiller · 2016-11-17T18:31:27Z

sips/minutes/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+the rest of the Committee except Josh vote in favor of it. According to our new
+rules, Josh gets to decide whether the proposal will be readmitted for review or
+cancelled (**NOTE**: Josh votes in favor of trailing commas one week after the
+meeting). Trailing commas will be reviewed in November.


I don't understand. Are we still waiting on Josh's vote?

No, Josh has already voted in favor. There was a typo: votes instead of voted.

So then this was accepted?

No, not yet. Dale didn't decide on a concrete change of the syntax, so Martin wants to check the final spec and see its implications. We're voting on it this month (29th November) since Dale has already submitted the changes and decided for one of the three options he proposed in its last specification.

We're voting a 3rd time? I really don't get this. The minutes definitely don't make it any clearer.

In other words, after the controversy about the process rules, we were deciding whether the trailing commas proposal should be reviewed again or automatically rejected.

None of this was clear in the meeting or in the minutes.

Forcing everyone to vote (including Josh) for a non-binding vote on whether to review this again is a bit weird, to be honest.

It may not be clear in the minutes, I will update it. There may have been some confusion during the meeting... here's the moment when Martin proposed it: https://youtu.be/tXYs9e6Qrb8?t=2266.

The vote was for my benefit: before I go off spending hours updating the SIP for the next meeting, let's check if it wouldn't be rejected regardless. It's no guarantee it'll be accepted, but I'm grateful for the vote.

heathermiller · 2016-11-17T18:32:21Z

sips/minutes/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+Dotty, in which the championed scheme is already implemented.
+
+There are no clear winner in the case of local lazy vals, but there seems to be
+two clear candidates for the non-local lazy vals (B4-general and B6).


There should be a link to the proposal so the reader can consult what B4 and B6 are, exactly.

heathermiller · 2016-11-17T18:33:39Z

sips/minutes/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+someone pick it up and provide an implementation. Ideally, this implementation
+should run in Java 8 and don't depend on var handles. The SIP Process Lead will
+wait some time to receive another candidate from the current author, Dmitry. If
+he doesn't propose anything, the SIP will be marked as dormant.


This is contradictory. At the beginning of this paragraph, it says this is marked as redundant. Then at the bottom it says that we'll wait for someone to be proposed before marking it dormant. Which is it?

Yeah, it's contradictory because we changed our mind several times during the discussion. The one at the end is the final decision. I would update this part of the document to make it clearer.

heathermiller · 2016-11-17T18:35:42Z

sips/minutes/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+before. For a proposal to pass, at least 50% of all the Committee 
+and two-thirds of all the people voting (not counting abstentions) must accept
+it. The quorum rule is kept. After some discussion, the Committee unanimously
+votes in favor of the new rules.


It's not clear from these notes which alternative was accepted in the end. Some more detail should be devoted to explaining the voting rule in the minutes. So far, to my knowledge, this is the only place the rule has been written so far.

Has the SIP process been updated with the new voting rule?

No, I'm on my way to do so. I would prefer to leave the minutes as they are and put all the examples and a clear specification in the process submission rules.

SethTisue

I did read over the stuff about voting, but it's complicated and I'm confused. I was confused during the meeting, too, so I'm not sure I can really shed any light.

SethTisue · 2016-11-18T21:38:53Z

sips/minutes/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+Attendees Present:
+
+* Martin Odersky ([@odersky](https://github.com/odersky)), EPFL
+* Seth Tisue ([@SethTisue](https://github.com/SethTisue)), EPFL


Lightbend, not EPFL

Let me explain everything in the submission process, and we discuss the clarity of the rules there 😄. If necessary, I can come back to these minutes and modify them accordingly or link to the actual changes.

OK. Can you fix my affiliation before merging, please?

Sure, count on it.

jvican · 2016-11-24T10:28:26Z

I have updated the document with your comments. For a complete explanation of the voting rules, see this other PR.

dwijnand · 2016-11-25T11:04:58Z

sips/minutes/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+
+**Outcome**: The Committee agrees to wait for Dmitry's response and then mark
+the proposal as dormant. The idea is to let someone pick it up and provide an
+implementation. Ideally, this implementation should run in Java 8 and don't


s/in/on/ and s/don't/not/

Fixed in last commit 😉.

jvican · 2016-12-02T14:34:21Z

@heathermiller Does this look good to you?

heathermiller

Some wordings are weird, but they're non-essential for this to be merged.

heathermiller · 2016-12-02T16:04:55Z

sips/minutes/_posts/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+Both are faster than the existing implementation in the contended case but V4
+general is 4x and V6 is only 2x. However, for the uncontended case V4 general is
+30% slower than the existing implementation, while V6 is on par, up to +-5%.
+Dmitry recommends the V6 case because it's a *pure* win. Memory-wise, V6 would


Why does "pure" have to be italicized?

heathermiller · 2016-12-02T16:05:54Z

sips/minutes/_posts/2016-10-25-sip-minutes.md

+cancelled the vote on the SIP-27: Trailing Commas, and invited the Committee to
+discuss new voting rules to help clarify the process voting system.
+
+The issue was caused by a legal void on the rounding of the 70% rule.


A legal void?

heathermiller · 2016-12-02T16:08:19Z

Oh, @jvican you forgot to link to the minutes on the SIP page.

jvican · 2016-12-02T16:09:15Z

It's automatic, I think, or at least I remember to have fixed this.

jvican · 2016-12-02T16:10:29Z

Yes, confirmed locally, it's automatic.

heathermiller · 2016-12-02T16:28:51Z

Ok cool, thanks for checking!

SethTisue · 2016-12-06T19:38:35Z

will there be a blog post?

heathermiller · 2016-12-06T19:41:36Z

There could be. Do you think it would be a good idea?

SethTisue · 2016-12-06T19:42:57Z

Sure... maybe a combo on this and the advisory board meeting that just includes brief summaries and links to the two longer documents?

SethTisue · 2016-12-13T22:29:42Z

Sure... maybe a combo on this and the advisory board meeting that just includes brief summaries and links to the two longer documents?

PR on this: scala/scala-lang#579

Add minutes for the SIP meeting in October 2016

4cf9faf

heathermiller requested changes Nov 17, 2016

View reviewed changes

SethTisue requested changes Nov 18, 2016

View reviewed changes

Address reviewer's feedback and concretize sections

752cd42

SethTisue approved these changes Nov 24, 2016

View reviewed changes

dwijnand reviewed Nov 25, 2016

View reviewed changes

Fix typos

627cd3b

heathermiller approved these changes Dec 2, 2016

View reviewed changes

heathermiller merged commit 096db18 into scala:master Dec 2, 2016

Add minutes for the SIP meeting in October 2016 #629

Add minutes for the SIP meeting in October 2016 #629

Uh oh!

Conversation

jvican commented Nov 17, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvican Nov 18, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SethTisue left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvican commented Nov 24, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jvican commented Dec 2, 2016

Uh oh!

heathermiller left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

heathermiller commented Dec 2, 2016

Uh oh!

jvican commented Dec 2, 2016

Uh oh!

jvican commented Dec 2, 2016

Uh oh!

heathermiller commented Dec 2, 2016

Uh oh!

SethTisue commented Dec 6, 2016

Uh oh!

heathermiller commented Dec 6, 2016

Uh oh!

SethTisue commented Dec 6, 2016

Uh oh!

jvican Nov 18, 2016 •

edited

Loading