DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 02:51:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 2/25/19 7:23 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> I've said before that that comparison is weak and not 
>> particularly useful, irrespective of  its intention.
>
> That you've said it before does not make it any more correct.

You're right that is does't change the facts, thats why it is an 
opinion. The resemblance, if any, it bears to the processes you 
describe is completely beside the actual point: namely that it is 
not _useful_.

> There are differences, too, of which the public discussions in 
> this forum is the main one.

Yes, thats why I think the journal submission metaphor is not apt.

> This is in danger of getting abused; open discussions around 
> DIPs in this forum give the false impression that DIP authors 
> have the authority to demand any extent of explanation and 
> justification of a decision.

Quoting myself from above:
> On the contrary, if we believe your reasoning to be unsound or 
> misguided
> (irrespective of who is at fault) then clarification and 
> resolution are the only appropriate courses of action.

If you believe that constitutes abuse, I really don't know what 
to say.

> We do not have the capacity to do that, and it would not be 
> anymore appropriate than journal reviewers being required to 
> provide detailed feedback to submitters' satisfaction.

I sincerely hope you don't lack the capacity, else why are you 
reviewing it in the first place? Time or bandwidth, sure, thats 
what DConf Foundation meeting is for (among many other things).

> This whole notion of a meeting whereby Walter is grilled by a 
> committee on why exactly he rejected DIP 1016 is Kafkaesque.

Indeed, that would serve no purpose. What I want from such a 
meeting is:
1) an outline of requested changes that accurately reflects the 
sentiments of the DIP. I am fully aware the DIP underspecified 
and omitted some key aspects and that there were some ambiguities 
present. You have provided some in that link, thank you. Although 
I note that some of the advice is outdated/wrong. All this back 
and forth cements my growing suspicion that the forum is not an 
appropriate place for such discussions, it severely lacks 
bandwidth and reciprocal latency.

2) changes to the DIP process, i.e. what to do in the event of 
DIP breaking behaviour/ambiguities discovered post final review, 
so that these misunderstandings do not happen again.

> You can count on me to massage the bureaucracy out of the 
> process if that's the bottleneck.

Good, but this one is stuck until DConf, the forum (as a place of 
communication) lacks the bandwidth for this.

> The most significant bit is to focus on working together toward 
> making the proposal better, as opposed to focusing on 
> negotiating acceptance.

YES! Thats what we've been trying to do! How ever, we can't do 
that if the criticisms do not reflect reality (lowering to 
statements, which was given as an example in the DIP and wrongly 
characterised in the formal assessment) and the ones that are 
legitimate criticisms are scattered about the forum. Hence why we 
want the official reasons for rejection at the bottom of the DIP 
to be updated to reflect that.

> But whether the DIP keeps the number or gets another one, if 
> the revised document is a 95% cut and paste of the existing 
> one, the review is liable to be a 95% cut and paste of the 
> existing one.

You, of all people, should know that a proposal is not a linear 
function of its text.
I _sincerely_ hope that your reviews aren't.