The DIP Process

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/26/19 12:46 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> I think most points of the DIP process make sense, but it has one very 
> large problem.  Feedback from language maintainers (Walter and Andrei) 
> is not done until the end of the process. You're asking someone to go 
> through a process that can take a year before the people who have the 
> power to accept or reject the proposal look at it or leave any 
> feedback.  This is extremely wasteful of the author's time, the 
> reviewer's time and causes extreme pressure for everyone involved.

This is the case for all relevant submission processes I know of - 
conferences, journals, programming languages. A process of 
shepherding/assistance is not unheard of, but exceptionally rare. I've 
only had direct experience with it in HOPL, which itself is an 
exceptional (and an exceptionally rare) conference. I recall the POPL 
community had something similar. Until we have an army of competent 
reviewers, we can't consider this.

The initial community process is an important step that ensures good 
initial quality of submissions. This is the case for many programming 
language communities. We could definitely do better there, and the DIP 
guidelines could emphasize the importance and the structure of this stage.

The process of revisions is intended to provide a path for proposals to 
evolve from initial submission to approval. Improvements of the 
mechanics and logistics of the revisions would be welcome.

I'm not sure how we can improve this from the top, but I'd love to 
foster more of an esprit de corps on the submitters' side. A DIP can be 
very impactful, but it requires hard work with no guaranteed outcome. 
All of the time and energy spent on contesting the DIP 1016 decision 
should have been at best directed toward improving the proposal. The 
attitude that DIP rejection is not an acceptable outcome and 
consequently needs to be negotiated in forums, that - that must be 
replaced with an attitude that a setback offers a solid ground for a 
better proposal.