2-round Phobos.std voting process

[growler]

On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 12:01:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> I think that core issue with this proposal is that it stays too 
> far from actual Phobos development reality and described 
> process is just too slow :) I am in favor of longer and more 
> stable transitions but in 12 months even core Phobos modules 
> may have API tweaks (not counting breaking compiler changes 
> :P). It does not make much sense to go for safer module 
> inclusion process when core language development still stays 
> pretty close to bleeding edge.

A fair point :D

>
> I'd propose to go directly opposite way - very flexible dub 
> packages in special category that get reviewed on regular basis 
> and put onto vote once API is set in stone and used in such 
> form for month or so. Voting to include into this category is 
> unnecessary, it should be enough to simply conform certain 
> style guidelines. After all, main goal is to get continuously 
> reviewed and easily accessible module proposals.

I like this proposal better, more streamlined.