The DIP Process
Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net
Tue Feb 26 23:37:41 UTC 2019
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:16:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
> 3. My DIP was rejected
> a. This is fine, there are valid reasons for this
> b. The rejection text was *completely* unhelpful, and 75% of
> it was
> completely wrong
> c. Despite an incorrect assessment, it was made *very clear*
> that I
> should start again, submit a new one *on the back of the queue*
This seems an important point: what are the avenues of appeal if
the decision to reject a DIP is based on problematic reasoning?
It seems very reasonable that rejected DIPs should have one (but
only one!) automatic "right of appeal" via which the authors can
respond to the rationale for the rejection, and if needed offer
potential fixes, and get a reappraisal without having to go all
the way back to the beginning of the process. That should reduce
the scope for rejections based on misunderstandings,
miscommunications, or trivially fixed flaws, while not overly
increasing the decision-makers' burden.
This is much more likely to reduce wasted time or demotivation
than early feedback, because most ideas only reveal their merit
after thorough investigation -- but it is very frustrating and
time consuming to have a well-worked-out idea knocked a long way
back when the concerns may be simple to address.
By the way, that's also something that exists in scientific
publishing: if the referees have severely misunderstood or
mis-assessed a piece of work, it's quite normal to request that
the editor seek a fresh opinion.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list