Thanks @ChShersh, for providing concrete examples to look at – as you suggest, it’s much easier to work in a concrete context.
- Accept or Reject ergonomic dependent types proposal.
No. This remains part of the GHC Steering Committee. But that committee is affiliated with the HF, and so the Board may work with the GHC SC on a proposal with far-reaching consequences.
- Decide what goes on the official Haskell.org website, maybe change the language mission to align it with HF goals.
This remains with the Haskell.org committee. Like the GHC SC, above, I expect the HF to represent the overall community in talking with Haskell.org.
- Generally speaking, are they a link between the community voice and actual decision-making.
Yes. It is my hope that the HF develop a polling function where it can source opinions from the community to help in decision-making.
- Decide on where to spend funding money and prioritise tasks (e.g. windows support vs better profiling)
Yes, absolutely. This is the easiest item to uphold.
Does this answer help? For me, these specifics are inferrable from the text already posted around the goals of the HF and call for nominations. But this is evidently not clear to others. Can you suggest specific rewordings of posted text to help make this clearer? Thanks!