New DIP Rules

[claptrap]

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 10:57:20 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 08:20:37 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>> Adding a third maintainer, whether on a flexible or permanent 
>> basis, requires finding someone with the proper skillset and 
>> scope of knowledge to fill the role, which is no easy task. 
>> But even were such a person found, we can find no rationale to 
>> prevent any language maintainer from evaluating their own 
>> proposals. By definition, as language maintainers, Walter and 
>> Atila are the final arbiters of which features do and do not 
>> make it into D. Whether one of them or someone else is the 
>> source of a feature proposal is irrelevant. They are either 
>> maintainers or they aren't. To take either of them out of the 
>> decision making process would be to say they aren't.
>>
>
> I would like that D has a third maintainer because that would 
> give the project a better balance of terror. As you described 
> Atila an Walter can still have veto rights in order for the 
> project not to be hijacked.

Maybe a third maintainer who only steps in when needed. I have no 
idea but I assume most DIPS are not actually that contentious?

So maybe have a vote of the core team, if it's above a certain 
threshold, ask someone else to step in instead of the person 
voting on their own DIP.