[dmd-internals] New DIP handling process

[Andrei Alexandrescu via dmd-internals]

My opinion in the matter is: there must be some protocol that guarantees 
consideration by the leadership. Can it be abused? Yes, just like 
standardization processes can and are, just how legal systems are, etc. 
But by and large they are a good thing, and we need to have one. For my 
part I'd be hypocritical if I can afford time to participate in the 
meandering chatter on the forums, yet refuse to devise a way for the 
appropriately determined to get my attention.

Of course there needs to be appropriate filtering, otherwise anyone can 
put obfuscated or just poor content into standard DIP format and 
transform DIP reviewing into an inefficient full-time job. This is what 
seems to be missing from the current proposal. I think a DIP should 
reach some form of consensus in the community discussion before it being 
eligible for formal review.

Another thing we should add is a structured form of interaction. Say 
there's a DIP there and the core team has a number of proposed changes 
and also a number of questions. The changes seem to be a good fit for 
pull requests against the DIP. How about the questions? What is a good 
mechanism for asking and addressing them? From what I see in the 
proposal the DIP manager is the middleman in that, presumably using 
email for communication. (Things should be clearly formalized even if 
that's the basic structure.)

DIPs should be more structured themselves. To the extent we preserve 
structure from the wiki DIPs that should be clearly stated and 
templated. Probably we need more than that, seeing as plenty of poor 
DIPs do follow the required structure. I'm thinking at least a PR 
against the language/library specification showing what changes to those 
would be needed in order to describe the proposed feature.

Generally, let's get this done. Thanks Dicebot for the initiative.


Thanks,

Andrei

On 6/12/16 4:15 PM, Михаил Страшун via dmd-internals wrote:
> On 06/12/2016 10:57 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I worry about a process that requires regular time commitments from
>> Andrei and myself. We always start out with good intentions, but
>> eventually reality sets in. I don't have a good answer.
>
> It is important though, otherwise it will only differ from existing
> system in fancy decorations. Note that "regular" doesn't mean "often" -
> we can schedule it even once a year if needed. It just needs to have
> some reliable rarity margin to ensure some slow consistent progress.
>
> As it was already mentioned before, DIP process is special in a sense
> that no matter how much routine volunteer can take care of, in the end
> it is still you and Andrei who need to make the decision and that part
> simply can't be delegated - we can only try removing the burden of
> getting to that point (which is exactly what I am trying to do here).
>
> I all open for any tweaks that make the process more convenient to you
> but I am afraid at least some commitment is unavoidable.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>