@safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

[Mike Parker]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:16:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

>
> Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? 
> Their point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.
>

Let me put it another way. The DIP process is something that, as 
DIP manager, it's in my power to change by revising the 
documentation. But it's not up to me to decide who or how many 
people make decisions about language features. That step is 
*outside* of the DIP process. If they wanted to, they could very 
well decide to implement new features without ever submitting a 
DIP.

The reason I'm arguing semantics is that on more than one 
occasion I have seen people who misunderstand what the DIP 
process is intended to achieve (e.g., people who assume it's a 
community vote). When people complain that "the DIP process is 
broken", then somewhere down the line on reddit or discord or 
somewhere else I'll inevitably run into someone who considers it 
broken from beginning to end because they saw in the forums that 
"the DIP process is broken". When enough people say it, that kind 
of thing can spread.

I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing 
to make them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it 
before. We all want the best process we can have. But changing 
how DIPs are approved is out of bounds for me and therefore not 
part of the DIP process.

Anyone who would like to see changes to the decision-making 
process is welcome to send suggestions or proposals to me, 
however, as Bruce has done. Then I can put that on the agenda of 
the next foundation meeting.