Preventing another 1028

[Bruce Carneal]

DIP 1028 is unsound.
DIP 1028 is deeply unpopular.
DIP 1028 is ridiculous.

How do we lessen the likelihood that DIPs like 1028 are accepted 
in the future?

DIP 1028 survived veto because the DIP author had a very low bar 
to jump over; he only had to convince one person that silently 
and globally calling extern(C) safe was sane.  Here are some ways 
to raise that bar:

1) Appoint an at-large language maintainer (LM) that steps in 
whenever either of the two LMs author a DIP.

2) Appoint an "emeritus" LM that can veto DIPs but is not 
required to actively approve them.  Andre?

3) Increase the number of LMs.

4) Some combination of the above.

If you have other, preferably simple, ideas on how to improve the 
DIP process, please chime in.  We may hit on something that could 
actually work.

If the LMs refuse amendment, and the governing docs provide no 
relief, DIP process dysfunction will remain a "vote with your 
feet" issue (the disaffected bleed away, growth stagnates, the 
community becomes ever more cynical and withdraws from DIP 
commentary, ...).

Finally, the elephant in the room: The DIP process would work 
much much better if Walter could somehow learn to communicate 
effectively in the forums.  Crucially, Walter often says that he 
believes he's answered a concern when the other, often highly 
respected, party most definitely believes he has not.  Evidently 
it requires the patience of Job and the clarity of Timon to get 
through to Walter.  Even that is not always enough.