New DIP Rules

[bachmeier]

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 15:08:04 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> 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.

My major concern is that the DIP process will stop working if 
Walter keeps using it. A DIP needs to be detailed, questions need 
to be answered, and an honest attempt needs to be made to deal 
with feedback. All the DIP process is doing now is generating 
mobs with pitchforks.

> 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).

To some extent, you have a similar problem with every DIP. Making 
a decision is a big task. Does it even make sense to ask for 
feedback from everyone with something like DIP 1000? It's not 
obvious to me that the DIP process is helpful for Walter's 
proposals. If Walter and Atila want input, they can post to the 
mailing list asking for input.

They shouldn't have to deal with community input unless it helps 
the decision process, and to the extent that it would be helpful. 
What isn't helpful is soliciting feedback and then making 
everyone upset because they felt their feedback was ignored. Is 
it better to waste everyone's time than for them to make these 
decisions themselves? At times these discussions are built on an 
implicit assumption that there is no opportunity cost of the DIP 
process (for Walter and Atila but also the other members of the 
community).