The DIP Process

[Mike Parker]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 11:28:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

> Again, we're all open to suggestions on how to improve the 
> process, so feel free to leave feedback here or email me 
> directly.
>

One thing I should add regarding this bit of the procedure:

"the DIP Manager or the Language Maintainers may allow for 
exceptions which waive requirements or responsibilities at their 
discretion"

I don't see anything inherently unfair in this. And I think 
allowing such flexibility is necessary for a healthy process. 
That said, it's not an option intended to be used frequently.

DIP 1010 (static foreach) was fast-tracked through each stage of 
the process, but before 1018, no part of the process was skipped 
for any DIP.

In this case, Walter and Andrei were both heavily involved in the 
drafting of the DIP and in the review of the implementation:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688

The DIP went through extensive Draft review:

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129

And as far as I can see there were no major structural 
deficiencies identified in the community review:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/eoqddfqbjtgfydajozsn@forum.dlang.org

Given that the purpose of the intermediate review rounds is 
intended to improve the odds the DIP will meet the standards of 
Walter and Andrei, that both were involved in the development of 
the DIP and its implementation, and that they see it as an 
important feature that they'd like to ship ASAP, the decision to 
skip the Final Review shouldn't be controversial.

All DIPs are subject to that possibility of any part of the 
process being skipped or abbreviated, so there's nothing 
inherently unfair that it happened here. Especially considering 
that Andre and Walter felt the DIP was already at a stage where 
they could accept it.

So I won't be removing the quoted line from the procedure 
document. What I can do is say that Walter and Andrei have had 
enough respect for the process that they have never 
demanded/ordered/required me to fast-track or skip a review 
round. In this case, they asked me if it was possible to do. 
Given the circumstances I've described, I saw no harm in it, 
especially given their timeline. If I had recommended we not do 
it and provided a rational reason, I'm confident we would have 
had a final review round.

Again, this is something that should be rare, but when the 
circumstances warrant it, it shouldn't be prohibited.