New DIP Rules

[jmh530]

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 14:47:29 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> [snip]
>
> This might work, provided the author of the DIP (a) provides 
> the necessary details in the DIP, and (b) makes a good faith 
> effort to understand and address feedback. I'm not convinced 
> that will happen. My preferred alternative would have been for 
> Walter to not go through the DIP process. That would be less 
> work for him and everyone else, and it would maintain the 
> integrity of the DIP process. He could talk directly with Atila 
> and anyone else he chooses to bring into the process.

I'm confused about your preferred alternative. If that were used 
for the @safe DIP, then Walter would have talked to Atila (who 
approved it) and a few others and then it would have been 
accepted. The outcome would have been the same. At least with the 
prior DIP process, the community would have been involved early 
on to provide feedback. While that feedback was largely ignored, 
it is functionally the same as the prior process just with a 
larger group of people who can provide feedback, multiple rounds, 
and a more formal process.

About the new process, I'm glad that they are listening to 
feedback, but it would be no easy feat for Walter to outsource 
something with the complexity of DIP 1000 (the DIP itself).

Personally, I would have preferred to see more focus on 
governance, such as an advisory vote on DIPs where the voters are 
not the whole community but a carefully selected subset of 
significant contributors or users of D (I learned about something 
similar that Stan uses, apparently they were influenced by Karl 
Fogel [1]). It could start as an advisory vote and if people are 
happy with it then it could be considered a community veto, 
whereby the DIP must achieve at least 1/3 of the advisory vote in 
addition to both LMs support to be approved or something like 
that.

[1] https://producingoss.com/en/producingoss-letter.pdf