New DIP Rules

[aberba]

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 10:57:20 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> 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.

And they they still manage to find loop holes in the system to 
exploit nevertheless.

>
> 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.

Great idea.

>
> 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.


Sometimes someone gotta trust someone will make a good decision 
and committees don't always (mostly??) make right decisions 
either. We all know familiar examples.

I believe Walter has made more good decisions in the past. With 
some few mistakes here and there. And in most times the community 
jump in and they're forced to revert.

Some of these DIP are the result of the same people who ask for 
random things based on daily wishes that they end up not needing 
after all.

It's hard to filter through which ones are pointless nitpicking, 
abstract or practical. And the community doesn't help with making 
progress sometimes...and things end up abandoned by the DIP 
authors...so many demands.