I approved DIP1036e

[M.M.]

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:07:36 UTC, DrDread wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 11:02:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 10:54:44 UTC, DrDread wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:58:44 UTC, Dibyendu
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the contributors job to convince not the other way 
>>>> round.
>>>
>>> see, there's your problem. it's not the contributors job, 
>>> they do this in their free time.
>>> if you want contributions you simply cannot act like that.
>>
>> Wrong. Spending your free time on a contribution does not 
>> automagically make it correct, suitable, or worth having. 
>> Every contribution has to be judged on its merits, not whether 
>> or not it was done on a salaried or volunteer basis.
>>
>> The question should never be, "Why not merge this?" but always 
>> "Why merge this?".
>
> you are still missing the point. it's not about rejecting a 
> proposal, it's about how the contributors are treated. how the 
> 'management' wastes the time of contributors by not engaging 
> early.

Let's hold on. There is this general critique of how DLF manages 
and treats contributors (which DLF acknowledges and wants to work 
on improvements) and there is this explicit statement/discussion:

* person_1: "It is the contributor's job to convince the language 
maintainers of adding a particular contribution."
* your reply (paraphrasing): No, it is not contributors' job, 
because they do it in their free time."
* Mike (paraphrasing): "Wrong. Spending free time does not 
warrant a correct and worth-having contribution. Every 
contribution has to be judged on its merits."
* your reply (paraphrasing): "You are missing the point. It is 
not about rejecting a proposal. It is about how contributors are 
treated."

Now, where in the discussion above was the point of "how 
contributors are treated" raised that you want to correct a view 
on this? As I see it, the whole discussion is about "contributors 
need to convince the language maintainers about the quality and 
merit of contributions", and not about "what is the interpersonal 
interaction in the process of convincing the language 
maintainers".