The DIP Process

[Manu]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:05 PM Donald via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 00:15:02 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > ...
> > Consider DIP 1080:
> >
> > W&A: this needs work, fix this
> > W&A: this needs work, fix this
> > W&A: this needs work, fix this
> > W&A: this is great, it's pre-accepted
> >
> > And DIP 1016:
> >
> > Others: this needs work, fix this
> > Others: this needs work, fix this
> > Others: this seems fine
> > W&A: I'm confused by this word, eject the whole thing into
> > space,
> > start again, you're an idiot, this is final, come back 1 year!
> >
> > Like, this meant to be funny, but it's actually accurate.
>
> Well this is a bit tricky. Because the way you showed above, you
> fixed what others pointed but not what W&A pointed.

Okay, I've repeated this a bunch now, but I'll do it again.
 1. They pointed out the exception problem, which I patched within an
hour or 2 (and was later reverted because 'final'). 'fixing what they
pointed out' is explicitly not welcome according to the process.
 2. Everything else in that text is wrong. I can't address criticism
that's not actually true.

> In your case just after you presented DIP 1016 that Walter/Andrei
> appeared.
>
> Finally I know you are an old member and trying to help, so
> please don't take this DIP rejection personally, I still think
> you should try one more time, with what W&A pointed and even
> highlight it in the document and re-applied again.

There's nothing in the rejection text other than the exception issue,
which I patched within hours (it was reverted).
The rest of it is completely wrong.

One of the cores of my struggle here beyond getting a re-assessment
with a word changed, was also getting the rejection text revised to be
*true*.
I would appreciate it be on record the reasons that the DIP was
rejected, and not the fantasy that caused it to be rejected. Then
there's clear and visible detail of the path forwards which everyone
can see.
Right now, anybody who goes to that document can read the rejection
text, and they'll assume that it's not just all made up, and that it
somehow represents technical reasons it was rejected.
I appealed for this outcome many times, and it's overtly and
repeatedly denied. Review is 'final', and the rejection text "is what
it is, and we don't owe anybody anything else" (like being correct).