See a typo? Have a suggestion? Edit this page on Github
A few days ago I published a post on the history of Stackage. I have another proposal coming out soon on formalizing some aspects of the Commercial Haskell Special Interest Group. Now seems like a good opportunity to share with you what I think makes Stackage a successful project and how we could improve Haskell resources using similar techniques.
Depending on how you measure it, Stackage is the largest community project I’ve ever started. The Github repo has (at time of writing) 567 contributors. For some comparison, Stack has 316 contributors, the WAI megarepo has 148, and the Yesod megarepo has 188. For those familiar with the process, contributing to Stackage is a much lower bar, but as you’ll see, that’s kind of my point here. Stackage also has a wonderful team running it called the Stackage Curators, consisting of 8 people (including myself).
I consider Stackage a success. It has addressed the goals I’d hoped to achieve (see the aforementioned History of Stackage post for more information). In this post, I’d like to explore some of the design choices—especially on the social side—that allowed Stackage to succeed. And then I’d like to see if we can learn some lessons for community projects in general.
Stackage starts off with a clear vision: “Stable, vetted Hackage.” That can further be described as:
This seems straightforward, and makes it easy for people to see if they care about participating. As a trivial example, we’re talking about Haskell packages here. Someone who exclusively writes Rust knows that they won’t be interested in contributing to this project most likely.
It also defines what is and is not in scope for Stackage. For example, an oft requested feature for Stackage is the ability to upload packages to it. This doesn’t fit in with the vision defined above of grabbing upstream Haskell packages. We do end up getting into some grey areas (should Stackage patch packages like Debian does? should Stackage accept packages from locations besides Hackage?). But this initial vision does a lot to help guide things.
As I’m saying a lot recently, I’m a big believer in simplifying the onboarding experience. Contributing a new package to Stackage is intentionally very simple: send a pull request adding a few lines to a YAML file and see if CI passes. We could have demanded more rigorous criteria, like proof that the package works with the latest Stackage Nightly. We could have used a different format than YAML. We could have hosted the repo somewhere besides Github.
However, for our target audience, Github, YAML, and watching a CI system are all fairly standard. If this was a less technical audience, I may have instead created a web application with Google-backed authentication and a webform for entering package names. Make the contribution and onboarding process as easy as possible for the target audience.
There is one requirement for getting a package into Stackage: it must build and pass test cases with all of the other packages in the snapshot. This is a machine checkable requirement, making it easy to vet whether or not requirements have been met. And the requirements follow directly from the vision stated above.
I don’t think we’ve yet had someone object to this requirement. If you don’t want to ensure your package is compatible with other packages on Hackage, that’s fine, but clearly Stackage isn’t a project you’d be interested in contributing to. Having the requirement stem directly from the vision reduces the scope of conflict.
That’s not to say that there are no disagreements. We have constant back-and-forths about how frequently LTS snapshots should be cut, how aggressively we should prune packages with restrictive upper bounds, when skipping tests is appropriate, etc. But the scope of these debates is relatively contained. It also brings us to our next point:
As this blog post demonstrates, I have a tendency to over-communicate publicly. But I think this is better than the alternative. We have a private Stackage Curators channel for discussing day-to-day boring matters (who’s on duty, reviewing blog posts, etc). But all major decisions these days are shared in an issue tracker, a blog post, a mailing list, or a Gitter discussion. And usually in more than one of those!
Furthermore, we try hard to document the decisions we’ve made in the
past. Both the
say quite a bit about how Stackage is run. We’ve tried to stress-test
these documents by having new members of the curator team onboard
themselves with the documentation, and then asking questions on what’s
unclear. If information is missing, we fill it into the
documents. Ideally, little to no information is retained exclusively
in someone’s head.
I wouldn’t say we’ve been perfect here. In fact, I’ve been the biggest culprit of problems here. When Stackage was a one-man show, I did have a lot of knowledge trapped in my head undocumented. I did implicitly make decisions by myself (many times without even realizing it). The rest of the curator team has been a very good influence on me, and has encouraged more structure in how we document and discuss our work.
If someone asked me “why should I participate in Stackage?” I could give some clear benefits:
If those benefits are appealing, and outweigh the costs of contributing to Stackage, then great! And if not, no hard feelings. Stackage is fully opt-in, and therefore there’s only positive pressure to be a part of it, no negative backlash for failing to comply.
Over the years, the stackage-curator tool has evolved quite a bit. Personally, I think the process of curating Stackage is relatively easy. I hope my fellow curators feel the same way. But with 2,000 packages being built regularly, it would be all but impossible to maintain Stackage without decent tooling. With that said, let’s get to improvements.
Stackage can and should improve. I believe the two biggest areas for improvement currently are:
I’m sure there are other improvements to be made as well, these are just the highest two on my personal list.
As I mentioned, I’m going to be following up soon with a proposal related to Commercial Haskell. I’m hoping the points above can influence other projects towards making good decisions towards success. For example, in the case of Commercial Haskell, I don’t think we’ve done enough to clarify the vision of the project.
We can also apply some of these lessons to other Haskell community projects. For example:
It seems like Hackage has a clear vision: a central package repository for all open source Haskell code which uses the Cabal build system. However, a secondary goal—complying with the PVP in order to allow for dependency solving—has been a highly contentious issue. I’ve already requested clarification of this point. In my opinion, if there was a clearly stated vision for Hackage in either direction, many of our problems would be solved.
Haskell Platform (the original, full version) solved multiple different goals at the same time:
I don’t see a problem with any of these goals. However, putting them together created problems. For example, bundling of the “batteries included” packages with HP led to a situation where it was (with old versions of cabal-install) difficult to upgrade packages, leading to in some cases of highly-security-vulnerable packages being shipped for years.
Ultimately, the Haskell Platform Core installer addressed a large part of this issue, since it minimized the vision of the project (an installer provided the most common tooling, including both cabal-install and Stack)
What’s the purpose of the haskell.org homepage? This has been a highly fought over issue, but defining a vision would have helped significantly. What is the purpose?
Stating what the vision is, having public discussion about how to achieve it, and finding methods to address alternative goals, could greatly help with community tensions over the site.
Within Stack—as I mentioned in my previous post—I see some possibilities for decoupling. For example, we could separate off the GHC installation code from everything else. This mostly falls into the same category: defining a clear vision (opinionated build tool) and letting the less opinionated piece (method of installing GHC) stand on its own.
haskell-lang.org was not started correctly. The vision was wrong. It should have been something like “Haskell for people who want a highly opinionated set of guidelines.” The naming should have reflected that. Hopefully that’s something that can be rectified in the near future.