Create 2023-07-14.md

Author: david-christiansen

meetings/2023-07-14.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# TWG 2023-07-14
+
+[Last meeting's minutes](https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/blob/main/meetings/2023-06-15.md)
+
+## Present
+ * davean scies
+ * Hécate
+ * John Ericson
+ * David Thrane Christiansen
+ * Jack
+ * Gershom
+
+## Timing
+
+We will move the meeting to this slot going forward as well.
+
+## Updates on Projects
+
+### Error Message Index
+
+ * We have stats! Traffic is still low, though.
+ * Most popular page is https://errors.haskell.org/messages/GHC-00158/
+ * The SoH participant doing Cabal errors is about done too
+
+### Security advisories
+
+* Group is up and running, seems to be functioning reasonably well
+* More data than tooling at his point, but hopefully the former spurs the later
+
+## Vote on PR 51
+https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/pull/51
+ * Approved unanimously
+
+## Vote on PR 50?
+https://github.com/haskellfoundation/tech-proposals/pull/50
+
+ * It would be nice if there were more structure
+ * John suggested eliminating the error string
+ * David pointed out that this would be a big problem for use cases like the playground and the Emacs mode
+ * Gershom suggested including a list of types, module names, etc along with the string
+ * David pointed the group at his comment about annotated strings/pretty printers, and pointed out that this could be implemented gradually
+ * Stability of full structured-error representation in the schema would make stability of the format over time tricky
+ * Gershom suggests approving as-is, with suggestions for future extensions that can be considered
+ * We voted to approve, 5 in favor and one abstaining (due to having not read it enough)
+ * Gershom will post result with feedback
+
+## Better Supporting Cross-Cutting Discussions
+
+ * David proposes adding another proposal category: inter-committee proposals. These would not be voted on by TWG, but would instead specify that they should be approved by other Haskell committees (e.g. CLC and GHC SC).
+ * Gershom proposes not voting on RFCs instead. We should instead modify our procedure so that the committee may at its discretion not vote on an RFC.
+ * Davean assents
+ * Our job with RFCs that we don't vote on is still to take care of the legwork and communications
+ * John: It's important that _someone_ vote on it before a merge. We should have a process that says that. 
+ * Davean: We could also vote to delegate the voting to other bodies. Our job is to figure out who the appropriate voting stakeholders should be.
+ * David will make a minor edit to the rules to make this clear, and propose it on the mailing list.