New DIP Rules

[IGotD-]

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 08:20:37 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> Adding a third maintainer, whether on a flexible or permanent 
> basis, requires finding someone with the proper skillset and 
> scope of knowledge to fill the role, which is no easy task. But 
> even were such a person found, we can find no rationale to 
> prevent any language maintainer from evaluating their own 
> proposals. By definition, as language maintainers, Walter and 
> Atila are the final arbiters of which features do and do not 
> make it into D. Whether one of them or someone else is the 
> source of a feature proposal is irrelevant. They are either 
> maintainers or they aren't. To take either of them out of the 
> decision making process would be to say they aren't.
>

I would like that D has a third maintainer because that would 
give the project a better balance of terror. As you described 
Atila an Walter can still have veto rights in order for the 
project not to be hijacked.


> Henceforth, when a language maintainer wants to write a DIP, he 
> will instead recruit someone to write it for him. This third 
> party will not just be the DIP author, he or she will be the 
> champion of the DIP. The idea is that the maintainer provides 
> the author with the broad outline (bullet points, notes, 
> whatever works) and any input necessary to get the initial 
> draft off the ground, but the author is ultimately responsible 
> for the content, including modifying the additional draft as 
> they see fit, and deciding which bits of community feedback to 
> incorporate and which to ignore throughout the DIP process. 
> (All such DIPs will include a note that the idea came from a 
> maintainer.)
>

I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. This is 
basically rule by proxy which is something I see in every day in 
real life politics and it is always ugly for obvious reasons.

I rather suggest that a maintainer cannot decide if a DIP they 
created themselves can be accepted or not. Maintainer still has 
full veto rights but not full accept rights. This almost require 
that we have more maintainers.

The other direction is a more Committee but requires even more 
people for a stable organization. I understood this wasn't really 
feasible at this point.