The DIP Process

[Olivier FAURE]

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 03:06:37 UTC, Nicholas Wilson 
wrote:
> A DIP is only as good as the feedback it receives.

You're saying this like it's self-evident, but it seems very 
clear to me that it's the very root of your disagreement with 
Andrei: you believe that the process should involve the reviewers 
making an effort proportional to the DIP author, whereas Andrei 
believes that the process should minimize reviewer effort.

Now, neither of these ideas are inherently invalid, but you have 
to realize they're a trade-off. You're not going to convince 
Andrei to change the DIP process by saying "The current process 
wastes the time of DIP authors!", because Andrei is already aware 
of that. The problem is that is that a process with a heavier 
involvement from W&A would waste/spend more of *their* time, 
which Andrei considers a bad trade-off.

(personally, I can see where he's coming from; there are a lot of 
people writing DIPs, and only two W&A; any process which requires 
more involvement from them is going going to see them spending 
less time on maintaining the compiler, designing features, and 
whatever else it is they're doing)

(that said, the current process could definitely stand to be 
improved, and I like the direction Mike is going for)