Walter and Andrei and community relationship management

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

Points well taken, thanks. One clarification - there is no need to 
formalize feedback to a DIP as another DIP, unless of course it is an 
alternative approach of its own.

A better process will indeed help all of us and raise the level of 
responsibility across the board. Acting on feedback entails good 
feedback is being passed around, thus creating a virtuous circle. So far 
the best example of that we have around is DIP1005, wherein successive 
rounds of meaningful feedback led to rigorous experiments and reviews, 
which in turn revealed new and surprising insights.


Thanks,

Andrei

On 04/14/2017 11:12 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> 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.