John A. De Goes

@sideeffffect A `Parallel`-like new type is necessary because `ap` must be consistent with `bind` for monads.

I'm working on this. 👍

@fwbrasil I think strict is fine. There are a few performance reasons for a lazy collection, mostly involving pipelining (non reducing / folding), but that could be a separate structure...

@azanin `Schedule` has shipped and therefore it's now possible to write instances for it.

@NeQuissimus Loosely based on [this ticket](https://github.com/scalaz/scalaz/issues/1526#issuecomment-347383066). I don't imagine each package would have its own prelude, just one prelude for the whole project. As for testing framework, @xuwei-k has donated...

@TomasMikula `package` in the sense of Scala.

👍

@Jacoby6000 Fixed @vmarquez the type classes can depend on the data package, and implement instances for them there (no orphans).

@TomasMikula Yes, I imagined things like `Leibniz`, etc., would fall in there. Perhaps `typelevel`? `mtl` is definitely a misnomer. What would you suggest? Maybe `effects` and rename `effect` -> `io`?

@TomasMikula Yes, but you can do some pretty interesting things with "runtime proofs" of type equivalence, which is what Leibniz gives you (e.g. GADTs). But I agree `types` is better....