Walter and Andrei and community relationship management

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 19:27:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> We commit to be more formal about the process, but overall it 
> is correct that we have more say in what gets in the language. 
> Allow me to add a couple of things.
>
> First, this is the way things are commonly done in language 
> design - a small committee defines a formal process and 
> ultimately decides on features. In fact it is unusual that we 
> put up unfinished ideas up for discussion, which we hope has 
> the raises the level of responsibility in the community. I 
> understand how what we did has been misunderstood as us just 
> considering ourselves exempt from the due process.

I'm glad to hear your intentions regarding process, but on this 
note I think there's a point that's worth considering.

One of the challenges we have is that a number of talented people 
have in the last years become disillusioned with the ability to 
get results through the processes on the table, or to have their 
feedback taken into account.  That means that there's not just a 
question of process moving forward; there's a question of how to 
undo the credibility gap that's been created by these past events.

So, while I think it's good that you lead by example in putting 
complete ideas up for discussion, it's also necessary to lead by 
example in actively seeking and taking on board feedback on these 
ideas, wherever it comes from (whether through a formal DIP 
review, or in discussion on the message boards, or whatever).  
This matters because if people can see that their smaller-scale 
feedback is being clearly taken into account, it gives greater 
encouragement to actually put in the work on larger-scale, more 
complete ideas of their own.

To take an example, Deadalnix' feedback on the @nogc Exceptions 
thread may not have been actionable, but there was detailed 
information there that could have been the subject of future 
investigation.  It comes across as putting process before 
community to insist that this feedback be provided via a DIP or 
in the formal review of a DIP 
<https://forum.dlang.org/post/oc2n3d$ijg$1@digitalmars.com> 
before it will be taken on board.  You have the information; why 
wouldn't you engage with it, if nothing else just to show 
willingness to break with the way things turned out in the past?

Put it this way: if the complaint is that you and Walter bypass 
process when you feel like it to get your own ideas through, a 
good way back from that might be to switch the equation round -- 
to _strictly_ apply process to your own ideas and contributions, 
but to actively engage with community feedback and ideas even 
when it doesn't go through the expected channels.

Then, if you get some level of progress and increased engagement 
with that, you might slowly make the process for everyone 
stricter over time -- once confidence in the process has been 
re-established.

That general principle -- of applying a higher bar to oneself 
than to anyone else -- is one that can serve well in increasing 
confidence in leadership.