Adding a new design constraint to D

[Mike Parker]

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:02:05 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 11:45:11 UTC, Olivier Pisano wrote:
>>
>> ..
>> I am suggesting you write a DIP, so you can come with an 
>> evaluation of this cost, since you are the one asking for it.
>
> To be honest, any DIP that only has one name written on it, is 
> a red flag to me.
>
> The point of discussing this first, is not replace the DIP 
> process, but to enhance the quality of it, so it can be 
> considered on merits, and not all the silly arguments that 
> always arise when scope privacy is raised.

The point of the DIP process is to enhance the proposal. Almost 
every DIP starts as a result of forum discussions. All the 
discussion you've done so far, for example, surely has provided 
enough material for an initial draft. When you're drafting the 
DIP, you can come to the forums, give a link to the draft in your 
DIP repository fork, and discuss the topic further refine your 
arguments, take suggestions, etc.

Once you submit the draft, the DIP is in Draft Review while it's 
in the PR queue. People can come in and leave comments, and you 
can discuss and debate the proposal to improve it. The Community 
Review round(s) then serve to further refine it. The Final Review 
is one last chance to look for major flaws, then it's sent off to 
Walter and Atila for assessment.

Multiple people contribute to every DIP, no matter how many 
people actually have their name in the author field.