The Problem With DIPs

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/8/2016 1:22 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> I believe it is big mistake to treat DIPs as a creative idea database.
> Most importantly because it diminishes motivation to put real effort
> into working on the DIP as opposed to just quickly throwing something on
> the table and moving on. Sure, those are useful for that purpose too,
> but focusing on it means greatly underusing potential of the concept.
>
> As I have already mentioned in some other thread, I am willing to
> volunteer to manage it in a more pedantic manner as I feel lack of
> formal decision process for major changes is currently The Biggest D
> Problem in my work (and not any of commonly called technical issues).
>
> Ideally DIP system should be a way to make proposal to language authors
> with good guarantees that it will get some resolution _eventually_ (not
> matter how it is) - and I don't mean just language change proposals but
> any major changes. Handling that process-wise is not that hard (and I
> can contribute roughly 1 day a week for related matters) but it will
> only work if you can arrange something like regular "2 hours of
> reviewing" each month or so to slowly move through the queue. Slow but
> perceived progress is still much better for morale than lack of visible
> progress at all.
>

I agree we should do better, I certainly welcome any efforts you're willing to 
devote to this. Most of the huge improvements in process in D have come about 
precisely because someone selected himself to take charge of the matter and make 
the required sustained effort. Saying others should do this or that has an 
abysmal track record.

I just didn't want to make promises I could not deliver.