The DIP Process

[Manu]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:15 PM Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> 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. 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,

What's frustrating is how people keep misrepresenting the conversation this way.

> but at a level it
> needs to be understood by the community that it is a normal and expected
> part of the process.

We're not talking about rejection, we're talking about the process
alone, and how it's configured to practically assure failure unless
you're reviewing them along the way.
Without a single feedback cycle from the stakeholders, and in light of
positive community reviews, there's literally nothing I can do to have
more or less confidence.
It's at your whim to misinterpret a variable name and lose your
mind... or not. I can't know what you're going to do on that morning,
and at that stage, the process says I have absolutely no recourse for
correction, and I was repeatedly told to start over at the back of the
queue, despite the review being almost totally wrong on account of one
word and no provision for amendment.

> The cure is improving the quality of DIPs.

This is a function of feedback. I had zero feedback cycles, and you
got all hung up on one word... so, I change that word, and then what?
We wait a year and see if there was something else?

> 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.

Nobody has ever suggested at any time that an unsuitable DIP should be accepted.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting this conversation?

Anyway, Walter's on this now. Fortunately, he'll have his own feedback
along the way. I don't expect he'll require that he wait a year to fix
a typo.