@safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

Johannes Loher johannes.loher at fg4f.de
Fri May 29 04:27:18 UTC 2020


Am 29.05.20 um 05:18 schrieb Mike Parker:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:16:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
> 
>>
>> Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? Their
>> point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.
>>
> 
> Let me put it another way. The DIP process is something that, as DIP
> manager, it's in my power to change by revising the documentation. But
> it's not up to me to decide who or how many people make decisions about
> language features. That step is *outside* of the DIP process. If they
> wanted to, they could very well decide to implement new features without
> ever submitting a DIP.
> 
> The reason I'm arguing semantics is that on more than one occasion I
> have seen people who misunderstand what the DIP process is intended to
> achieve (e.g., people who assume it's a community vote). When people
> complain that "the DIP process is broken", then somewhere down the line
> on reddit or discord or somewhere else I'll inevitably run into someone
> who considers it broken from beginning to end because they saw in the
> forums that "the DIP process is broken". When enough people say it, that
> kind of thing can spread.
> 
> I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing to make
> them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it before. We all
> want the best process we can have. But changing how DIPs are approved is
> out of bounds for me and therefore not part of the DIP process.
> 
> Anyone who would like to see changes to the decision-making process is
> welcome to send suggestions or proposals to me, however, as Bruce has
> done. Then I can put that on the agenda of the next foundation meeting.
> 
> 

OK, now I understand why you view it that way and it makes sense. Thanks
for clarifying that. Personally, I did not view it that way until now
(and I believe many others also did not). For me the DIP process was the
complete process you need to go through in order to get a change to the
language accepted or rejected, including formal assessment.

And from the documentation of the DIP process, it certainly reads that
way as I have laid out in an earlier post. If formal assessment really
is not part of what we call the "DIP process", the documentation needs
to be adjusted to make that clear.

However, from the perspective of anybody else than you, it doesn't
really make a lot of sense. Why would you ever consider the process
without the actual decision making in the end? For the community, it
doesn't really matter that you personally don't have any power regarding
the decision-making process. We want to talk about the whole process of
getting a change into the language and it's just cumbersome to always
say "the DIP process and the decision making process"...


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list