I approved DIP1036e

[M.M.]

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:41:17 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:28:31 UTC, M.M. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 11:40:31 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>>
>>>> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical 
>>>> points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them 
>>>> personally.
>>>
>>> Look, the reason there are two people to review the DIPs is 
>>> so that Walter doesn't get to review his own DIPs. That 
>>> process was set up to avoid conflict of interest.
>>
>> I understand your desire to have Walter more explicitly 
>> detached from decisions about his own DIPs. But, you are aware 
>> that DIP1027 was rejected, right?
>
> It's more that he should not have used the talk about 1036 to 
> bring back his own DIP that had already been rejected. Not when 
> he's the final judge. Is disrespectful and unfair.

I myself saw his comparison of DIP1027 to DIP1036, YAIDIP, and 
DIP1036e as demonstrating his overall general wish for "simple 
solutions" with "little corner and special cases"; in this view, 
bringing back DIP1027 demonstrates this part very concretely 
(instead of abstractly). But I certainly see that using your 
lenses the overall approach of Walter can be seen as pushing for 
own solution (and not arguing for a general simpler solution).

I personally thought that the discussion could have been swifter 
(but then again, we would perhaps end up with DIP1036 instead of 
DIP1036e) and, somehow, more open to listening (well, at least 
from the how-it-looks-like-on-the-forum point of view).

Overall, I understand that there are people frustrated with the 
overall situation 
(communication/discussion/rules-of-contribution/etc) how dlang is 
rung, and I also understand that some feel this is a long-term 
accumulation of frustrations. (I would just like to point out 
that DLF is acknowledging much of that and commits to 
improvements. I understand that some do not see this.) But 
talking about principles and communication, I think that refusing 
to write a documentation for a new feature is not the nicest way 
to communicate. (While I understand this all came from a 
culmination of frustration over previous discussions on a related 
feature.)