Concurrency architecture for D2

[Tim Matthews]

On 29/12/2009 3:48 a.m., Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 15:32:52 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>
>> I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of
>> concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling over
>> models and options.
>>
>> It would be great to open the participation to the design as broadly
>> as possible, but I think it's realistic to say we won't be able to get
>> things done on the newsgroup. When we discuss a topic around here,
>> there's plenty of good ideas but also the inevitable bikeshed
>> discussions, explanations being asked, explanations being given, and
>> other sources of noise. We simply don't have the time to deal with all
>> that - the time is short and we only have one shot at this.
>>
>> That's why I'm thinking of creating a mailing list or maybe another
>> group for this. Any ideas on what would be the best approach? I also
>> want to gauge interest from threading experts who'd like to
>> participate. Please advise: (a) whether you would like to participate
>> to the design; (b) keep discussions on the general group; (c) create a
>> separate newsgroup; (d) create a mailing list. The latter would have
>> open enrollment.
>
> I think it should be as open as possible. If done in a separate smaller
> group, it may be a good idea to post reports to the general newsgroup
> more or less regularly so that those who cannot participate in the
> detailed discussions have an idea of where it's going, and also to get
> more general input.
>
> About the bikeshed issue, I'm not sure how much those bikeshed
> discussions are slowing down the more important ones, but they often
> start from legitimate real, often syntactic, issues. Those discussions
> shouldn't be avoided just because everyone has an opinion. But perhaps
> regular reports to the general newsgroup would help confining them there.
>
> I'd be in favor of creating a newsgroup for concurrency, and I'll
> probably want to participate a little too, although I'm not sure how
> much yet.
>

I agree with the open as possible +1. A closed model would likely only 
permit fully committed and those that have no say without letting 
anything in between where as the open allows some feedback.

As for off topic: This can be avoided by using another form of 
communication. Maybe just add a few announcements here and put all 
proposals with for/against arguments on the wiki. Or anything that 
supports some sort of moderation/editing but I think wiki is perfect for 
this.