Preventing another 1028

[Bruce Carneal]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:16:00 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:01:43 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 00:05:19 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>
>> I think one of the biggest problems is the expectations of the 
>> management model. DIP 1028 has issues where a lot of people 
>> disagreed and valid criticism, yet it was accepted on the 
>> first round. Is this a community development model? Perhaps D 
>> should go towards a committee model instead. This might be a 
>> better model for Walter and those who has a clear vision of 
>> how D should evolve, despite unpopular changes.
>
> The duopoly model has strengths and weaknesses as do others. In 
> the case of 1028 the duopoly model was abused.  We no longer 
> had 2 experts looking out for the community, we only had one, 
> Atila.  We can fix that in the future by altering the DIP 
> process.  I have proposed such a modification to Mike.
>
> Per email with Mike other modification proposals are welcome 
> and can be submitted in this thread.
>
> Side note: I think Mike has done a very good job.  It's the DIP 
> process itself that could use some help.

For ease of reference, I repeat here the two proposals I've made 
to Mike:

1) Recruit an "at large" LM to stand in whenever a DIP authored 
by a regular LM is being considered.

2) Recruit Andrei, or Timon or ... as a tie-breaker LM who can 
weigh in to break a tie between the two LMs (2 out of 3 wins).

As noted in the email to Mike, even asking someone to be one of 
these "part time" LMs is a big ask but we've got to start 
somewhere.

The first proposal addresses the duopoly weakness exposed by 
1028.  The second proposal is a much bigger deal and is intended 
to get us past single person veto mistakes.  It should also 
reduce cynicism and promote engagement.

If you've got other ideas on how the DIP process could be 
improved, please submit them here.