@safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

[Seb]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>>> For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
>>> out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 
>>> we only had 1, Atila.
>>>
>>> This is a problem with the process that can and should be 
>>> fixed.
>> 
>> No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to 
>> a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since 
>> the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial.
>> 
>> The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that 
>> gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change 
>> if the number of board members increases/members recuse 
>> themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.
>
> Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few 
> days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we 
> don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the 
> problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources 
> (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we 
> can't get around this obvious obstacle.

I don't think that's necessarily true.
We already have a few amazing people like Ian (GDC), kinke (LDC) 
or Timon whose opinion I/we value greatly.

Especially considering that LDC and GDC also have quite some 
stake in development: why can't we give the current lead of both 
these projects at least voting rights for DIPs?

Note that voting right doesn't mean that they have to vote on 
every DIP, but surely this DIP is one of the sadly many recent 
examples where the current one-man decision-making has very 
obvious flaws.

>  Much of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the 
> fact that he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.

Yes, but isn't this exactly why he shouldn't be in charge of 
reviewing his own proposals?