The DIP Process

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/26/19 11:12 PM, Jordan Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 03:19:53 UTC, James Blachly wrote:
>>
>> Ultimately, I agree with other commenters that it could be helpful to 
>> have feedback from the language maintainers much earlier in the 
>> process than at the very end of a potentially long road. Clearly no 
>> one can compel Andrei and Walter to provide more of their limited 
>> time, but some additional intervention, whether in pre-review, or 
>> shepherding of reviews, may go along way toward alleviating the 
>> concerns raised recently.
> 
> Would it be useful to have 1 more offical review step?
> 
> Step 1: The author creates the DIP
> Step 2: The author submits the DIP to the DIP manager (community input 
> already implied)
> 
> Step 3: The language maintainers perform a *pre-review*
> 
> Step 4: The DIP manager informs the author of the feedback
> Step 5: The author actions feedback as needed, submits the DIP to the 
> DIP manager
> Step 6: Final review
> 
> I realise it's an increase of workload for the language maintainers, but 
> the payoff may well be worth it if we can still get engagement from 
> expert D users like Manu etc.

That should already be the case, with a revision loop between steps 3 
and 5. Mike, perhaps the iteration and revision system could be 
emphasized and clarified further in the guidelines.