Simon Peyton Jones

> @simonpj Is it "based" as in "vaguely inspired by" or as in "quoting fragments verbatim"? Do we owe them copyright? I have no idea. I wrote it from scratch...

> the members of the GHC Steering Committee could do what I did in this pull request to 'push it further back down the chain'. but if we simply point...

> I would prefer to retain a closing statement of what the Foundation does not tolerate and, again, I do not see a need for 'listing', so (or something to...

Oh ok. So the summary is: * Delete the current last bullet "We do not tolerate..." * Add a new first bullet "We welcome into the Haskell community people of...

> I'd prefer a more actionable and active statement like "We avoid forms of expression and other behaviours that attack, humiliate, demean, or marginalise - even where we disagree with...

> Perhaps we should settle the original pull request within the scope of the original motivating issue and then deal with 'repurposing' of the Foundation's published document separately? I agree....

What is perplexing for me is the following. Suppose we have * `filepath` which just happens to come with GHC, say `filepath-4.3.1` * `wombat` which just happens *not* to come...

> Therefore, the inconsistent cabal behaviour may be caused primarily by ghc and others not being reinstallable/rebuildable Yes indeed: * IF the build plan uses `ghc-the-package` * THEN you are...

> Most of the base implementation practically lives in ghc-internal and is just re-exported. I don't see how we can separate base from the GHC project reasonably while this is...

Good summary. Some quick thoughts: > Which parts must remain due to wired-in constraints (e.g. primops, core types)? Another reason is this: if anything that truly belongs in `ghc-internal` depends...