The DIP Process

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 23:13:47 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.

No but the review of DIP1016 shows a large gap between the 
desired accuracy of the DIP and the actual accuracy of the review 
given.

> The onus to convince is squarely on the DIP. This is in keeping 
> for all related review processes I know of.

A DIP is only as good as the feedback it receives. DIP 1016 had 
many issues fixed with it throughout its review, the fact that 
no-one picked up on any issues w.r.t e.g. exceptions is a fault 
of the community review (Manu doesn't use exceptions and it is 
unreasonable to expect him to a priori take that into account) 
and it is a _good thing_ it was discovered in the formal review. 
The way that it was _handled_ was not good.

> 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.

For the Nth time: the problem is NOT that the DIP was rejected, 
but the reasons given and that the way that it was handled. These 
are symptoms of issues with process.

See also 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.7201.1551219386.29801.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com

Please read the whole thing, Manu says it much better than I can.

> The cure is improving the quality of DIPs.

A DIP is only as good as the feedback it receives.

> 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.

The main liability in giving unhelpful and wrong reviews is that 
it pisses everyone off and wastes a whole lot of time (further 
extended by the length of the entire process).
I'm going to make bloody well sure _that_ doesn't set a precedent.