@safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

[Gregory]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:28:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
>>> Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
>>
>> This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only 
>> thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I 
>> was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round 
>> because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many 
>> pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter 
>> really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot 
>> chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default 
>> is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....
>
> The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every 
> other DIP.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs

I think everyone can agree that there's a huge conflict of 
interest when the person creating the DIP is also the one that is 
suppose to be criticising it and determines whether it is 
accepted or not. There's a huge difference in the level of 
detail, care, and explanation between one of Walter's DIPs and 
the DIPs done by other individuals.

As is with the case with DIP1028, no where in the DIP is 
greenwashing mentioned. There's barely a section explaining the 
rationale as to why extern(C) should be @safe. Walter 
purposefully did not explain his rationale behind the motive to 
make that change. He only explained it after the DIP had already 
been accepted. So it was never something anyone could criticise 
in the entire process because his DIPs don't have to explain. It 
just has to state what it's doing and that's not what a DIP 
should be; it should explain why so it can be criticised properly.

There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 has 
made that clear.