Formal review of DIP1002

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 11/17/2016 7:30 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 15:26:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> Regardless of the outcome, I just want to commend whoever wrote the rejection
>> text* on doing such a clear and comprehensive job. I'm sure it must be
>> disappointing for a DIP author to have it rejected, but detailed, constructive
>> criticism like this would - for me at least - make the experience worthwhile
>> and encourage further contributions of higher quality.
>>
>> * I see dicebot committed, but I'm presuming Walter &| Andrei had a lot of
>> input and I think i detect recent exposure to the academic review process...
>
> The text was sent to me by Andrei, though I presume Walter did take part in
> making the decision :)
>
> Hopefully such high quality and detailed feedback will provide a much more clear
> picture about expectations from DIP content and overall chances for various
> kinds of proposals to be approved.

I too am pleased that Andrei has set the bar pretty high on both the 
thoughtfulness and care with which a proposal is evaluated.

Although I agree with Andrei on the points raised and conclusions drawn, the 
wording is all his as is the work put into it.

And a big thanks to Dicebot for putting this review process in place and 
managing it.