DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/25/19 1:06 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, 25 February 2019 at 02:56:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Your DIP, and nobody else is going to do it, so it falls to me.
> 
> It will be reviewed at Dconf, please make sure you have an _accurate_ 
> summary of your criticisms of the DIP ready for then.

This seems to be a misunderstanding of protocol. A negative review is 
simply a signal that the submission has not been strong enough. As such, 
the submission, not the review, needs to be improved. There are 
similarities and differences between our DIP process and paper 
submission reviews at conferences and journals everywhere; one key 
similarity is that the submitters are on hook for providing convincing 
submissions, whereas reviewers are not required to defend their reviews. 
It's an asymmetric relationship that occasionally frustrates, but it is 
as such for good reason and it works.

It does happen in such processes that a submission is rejected wrongly, 
by means of reviews that do not reflect the quality of the submission. 
This is the case most often when a nonspecialist reviews a specialty 
paper and fails to appreciate the subtler aspects of the submission. In 
this DIP's case, we submit this is not the case here; to the extent the 
DIP failed to convey its intent, that is squarely a pervasive matter 
with the DIP itself. It is not a matter of misunderstanding 1-2 
sentences, but a problem of precision in specification that needs to be 
approached with due care.

Thorough feedback has been given, likely more so than for any other 
submission. A summary for the recommended steps to take can be found here:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/q2u429$1cmg$1@digitalmars.com

It is not desirable to demand reviewers to do more work on the review or 
to defend it. Acceptance by bullying is unlikely to create good results. 
The target of work is squarely the proposal itself.

Our understanding after Manu asked for action items was that he would be 
up for the work in short order. Not wanting to step on any toes and seem 
like taking away credit, Walter decided to hold off on working on it 
although he wanted to do so now that the matter is in his hands. Now 
that after three weeks Manu gave permission, I assume Walter would be up 
for the task.


Andrei