Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could be followed easier.

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:17:51 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
> Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could be followed easier.

For now intention is to aggregate all discussion threads / reviews / mail list archives via links in DIP itself. Thanks for reminding about it btw, I have just added https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md#reviews

Adding something more complicated can be considered but we don't have that much DIP related information traffic yet to make extra complexity worthwhile.

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:17:51 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
> Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could be followed easier.

How about using the pull request? You can even comment on a specific line ;-)

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:43:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:17:51 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
>> Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could be followed easier.
>
> For now intention is to aggregate all discussion threads / reviews / mail list archives via links in DIP itself. Thanks for reminding about it btw, I have just added https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md#reviews
>
> Adding something more complicated can be considered but we don't have that much DIP related information traffic yet to make extra complexity worthwhile.

I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like saying that if there were no humans around to breath there would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it to be used and grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) that first people need to use it("have traffic"). The better you build something the more people will use it. If you can't build it well then no need to beat around the bush.

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 22:16:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:43:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> For now intention is to aggregate all discussion threads / reviews / mail list archives via links in DIP itself. Thanks for reminding about it btw, I have just added https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md#reviews
>>
>> Adding something more complicated can be considered but we don't have that much DIP related information traffic yet to make extra complexity worthwhile.
>
> I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like saying that if there were no humans around to breath there would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it to be used and grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) that first people need to use it("have traffic"). The better you build something the more people will use it. If you can't build it well then no need to beat around the bush.

We have official threads in General and in Announce where people discuss about DIPs. The traffic on those threads is not so high as to justify having a dedicated channel for them. Being where they currently are is sufficient for the current needs.

So I have to agree with Dicebot.

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 22:16:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
> I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like saying that if there were no humans around to breath there would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it to be used and grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) that first people need to use it("have traffic"). The better you build something the more people will use it. If you can't build it well then no need to beat around the bush.

I am saying that any system does not come for free and has both setup and ongoing costs. It has to be justified by the fact that existing approach doesn't work anymore, "it is cool" or even "it is better" is not enough. D workforce is simply not large enough to afford commitments of limited importance.

On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 00:10:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 22:16:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
>> I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like saying that if there were no humans around to breath there would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it to be used and grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) that first people need to use it("have traffic"). The better you build something the more people will use it. If you can't build it well then no need to beat around the bush.
>
> I am saying that any system does not come for free and has both setup and ongoing costs. It has to be justified by the fact that existing approach doesn't work anymore, "it is cool" or even "it is better" is not enough. D workforce is simply not large enough to afford commitments of limited importance.

I don't disagree with the "practical" aspects, but to know if it is worth it requires far more actual facts than suppositions and guesses(not saying you are completely guessing).  For example, there might be someone out there willing to contribute the time and do all the work but if no effort is made to made those connections they cannot happen.

So, I am trying to change your attitude, not necessarily the outcome. Do you not agree it is better to have a positive approach like "Yes, we need to get some type of proper discussion format going on to maximize involvement, we just need to figure that out"?

Then the figuring out part is just a "problem" to be solved at some point by someone... and that is easy("time and money" which is something the world has a lot of).

But if there is a negative/pessimistic/skeptical approach, things simply cannot progress and evolve.

So, I'd rather hear something "Yes, great idea... we will work on it when we get a chance" as it lets me know that the proper attitudes are in effect that will help D go somewhere. If I here "No, that's too hard... too much work. Not interested", etc. It lets me know that the fight is an uphill battle and it makes me not want to be part of that negative approach. Make sense?

For example, I would be willing to contribute if I thought/believed my contributions were going to be worthwhile. I am not alone in this, everyone is this way.

On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 01:09:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:
> So, I'd rather hear something "Yes, great idea... we will work on it when we get a chance" as it lets me know that the proper attitudes are in effect that will help D go somewhere. If I here "No, that's too hard... too much work. Not interested", etc. It lets me know that the fight is an uphill battle and it makes me not want to be part of that negative approach. Make sense?

I think what Dicebot was saying is that according to his estimate the cost/benefit ratio for this idea is too low for him to volunteer for it.

> For example, I would be willing to contribute if I thought/believed my contributions were going to be worthwhile. I am not alone in this, everyone is this way.

No one ever said that contributions aren't welcome ;-)

I think your question was understood as "Hey guys, please do this!", not as "Hey I would like to have this, how can I help?"

As said before I think that the discussion on the pull request or the thread in the NG are quite okay for the moment (for comparison afaik: Rust uses explicitly the pull request to discuss their RFCs, whereas Python uses solely a mailing list).

My personal take on that: it's great if you have time to contribute, but there are a lot more important things to do & if you want to improve the DIP process, the best thing to do is to write a DIP yourself.
There are plenty of draft DIPs at [1] that just wait for someone like you to polish them and make a superb DIP submission out of them!

[1] https://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs