Idea #1 on integrating RC with GC

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 17:50:54 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Suggestions for doing things better are gladly considered.
>
> As I have mentioned on some occasions, I was very impressed by 
> both simplicity and efficiency of Arch Linux "Trusted User" 
> organization after studying it "from inside". It is group of 
> people that are not directly affiliated with Arch developers 
> but have volunteered to take care/responsibility about parts of 
> ecosystem. They also have power to make decisions regarding 
> that ecosystem by formal voting procedure (with strict quorum 
> and success % defined). Addition of new trusted users requires 
> sponsorship from one of existing TU's and is approved by the 
> very same voting procedure. Usually new TU's state clearly what 
> parts of the ecosystem they want to be responsible for during 
> initial application and this is often taken into consideration 
> by voters.
>
> I think D community can take some inspiration from such 
> approach. It will allow to make decisions on more controversial 
> topics and speed up process in general by removing bottleneck 
> of your + Walter decision (assuming you still have veto votes 
> in case stuff goes really bad). Also it gives clear overview of 
> who is supposed to be responsible for what and feeling of 
> making the difference for those who take part in it.

To give some specifics, one D example where we do have something 
resembling an organized process is Phobos review queue. Once I 
have noticed that there are lot of proposal rotting there (and 
that I don't like it) it was trivial to read the reiew process 
description, step up and proceed with all that stuff. 
Expectations were clear, process was (mostly) clear, same for 
responsibilities.

And main reward for that is that I can choose what gets reviewed 
next and poke people about their work :)