The DIP Process

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 00:06:14 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 23:50:12 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> Anyway, follow-on conversation did eventually reveal action 
>> points, but by that point, the process has already 
>> self-defeated and I'm grumpy and disengaged at this point. The 
>> process was the problem here for me, not the verdict.
>
> Adding a fast-track revise-and-appeal seems a straightforward 
> process revision.  If that were to be given a trial in this 
> case as a goodwill gesture, do you think it might have a chance 
> of de-grumpifying you?  (Obviously it's not in my hands to 
> offer that, but raising the idea seems useful.)
>
> If I understand right Nicholas Wilson has proposed a process to 
> deal with this at DConf, so no worries if you would rather 
> follow that route.

;)

> revise-and-appeal

That seems to have already been the case with DIP1009 
(expressions based contracts) or at least something like it.