New DIP Rules

[Avrina]

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 08:20:37 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> * /Walter didn't listen to the feedback./ There is a difference 
> between listening to feedback and disagreeing with feedback.

The issue here is that he does listen to feedback, but doesn't 
have an actual discussion. He doesn't say why he doesn't agree 
with it and just provides a response that stops all discussion 
instead of promoting it to come to an understanding. The DIP is 
written to be similarly and deliberately vague. There was no 
mention of any sort of "greenwashing" until after the DIP was 
already accepted, it was obviously a major key reason for why 
extern(C/C++) was being implemented the way it was. But none of 
that reasoning was conveyed, so there was no discussion for why 
that reasoning was terrible.

> The idea is that the maintainer provides the author with the 
> broad outline (bullet points, notes, whatever works) and any 
> input necessary to get the initial draft off the ground, but 
> the author is ultimately responsible for the content, including 
> modifying the additional draft as they see fit, and deciding 
> which bits of community feedback to incorporate and which to 
> ignore throughout the DIP process. (All such DIPs will include 
> a note that the idea came from a maintainer.)

This "solution" doesn't solve the problem, but then again if you 
don't think there's a problem then you obviously aren't going to 
provide a suitable solution :).