@safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

[Aliak]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
>>>> DIP1028 has made that clear.
>>>
>>> I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
>>
>> Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to 
>> Walter's responses).
>>
>> If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped 
>> out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider 
>> my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends 
>> fast past Walter.
>
> I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one 
> succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not 
> a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is 
> unpopular is not a failure of the process.
>
> Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating 
> their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not 
> with the entire process.

Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a 
particular end.

If the end is the decision, then that’s part of the process.

If the end is “a proposal that can be submitted for consideration 
to the language maintainers” then I guess the process is fine, 
but when the dip wither is a language maintainer then it’s a 
farce instead.