The DIP Process

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 02/26/2019 11:46 PM, NaN wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 18:22:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/26/19 12:46 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure how we can improve this from the top,
>
> You can require the same accuracy and rigour from the review as you do
> from the DIP. Unless you think that yourself and Walter are infallible
> then the review process is fundamentally flawed. Dip in, one guy
> reviews, result out, decision final will result in flawed reviews and
> disillusioned contributors.

Thanks for writing. We are not able, and should not aspire, to provide a 
review at the same level of accuracy as the DIP. The onus to convince is 
squarely on the DIP. This is in keeping for all related review processes 
I know of.

However, this is good pressure for us to produce good DIPs, together 
with all other proposers.

I understand rejection of a DIP creates frustration, but at a level it 
needs to be understood by the community that it is a normal and expected 
part of the process. The cure is improving the quality of DIPs. The main 
liability in accepting a DIP that is not suitable is it creates 
precedent for other unsuitable DIP to get in, in a descending spiral of 
quality.