On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 20:38:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15715
>
> The only credit I can take is my constant challenges to it caused it to evolve into a much better proposal.

Its nice that you're able to put a positive spin on it but the whole debacle has seriously damaged the community. You can keep telling yourself that the process should be difficult, that the fact that the dip was improved justifies all the drama, frustration and bad feelings that were generated. But it does not.

Plain simple fact is if you had been just trying to improve 1036, and been clear about that, then it would have been far less of a problem.

But what played out in the newsgroup looked to pretty much like you just couldn't let go of 1027 and would do almost anything to bring that back from the dead in lieu of 1036e.

You can say this is not what was happening from your point of view, but it certainly did not look that way. And even the most honest and self aware person would struggle to be fair and unbiased in such a situation. It's not a criticism of you, its just how the human brain works.

The problem is you are the gatekeeper, you shouldn't be in a position where you have a competing DIP and also still be the person who decides which one is accepted. It's a conflict of interest. And can only make things like your constant misunderstandings and hence misplaced criticism of 1036 look disingenuous.

So in the end, I hope you realise that accepting DIP1036 does not solve the underlying problems with how D is managed.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:08:28 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>
> The problem is you are the gatekeeper, you shouldn't be in a position where you have a competing DIP and also still be the person who decides which one is accepted. It's a conflict of interest. And can only make things like your constant misunderstandings and hence misplaced criticism of 1036 look disingenuous.
>
> So in the end, I hope you realise that accepting DIP1036 does not solve the underlying problems with how D is managed.

You are wrong. This is not a democracy. Walter is the BDFL for D, and he and core team decide what goes in.

There is no problem here. Debates and disagreements are healthy. Forking is also healthy. Attacking Walter and core team isn't.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:42:29 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:08:28 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>
>> The problem is you are the gatekeeper, you shouldn't be in a position where you have a competing DIP and also still be the person who decides which one is accepted. It's a conflict of interest. And can only make things like your constant misunderstandings and hence misplaced criticism of 1036 look disingenuous.
>>
>> So in the end, I hope you realise that accepting DIP1036 does not solve the underlying problems with how D is managed.
>
> You are wrong. This is not a democracy. Walter is the BDFL for D, and he and core team decide what goes in.

I never said anything at odds with that.


> There is no problem here. Debates and disagreements are healthy. Forking is also healthy. Attacking Walter and core team isn't.

You are niave and misinformed, alot of people, even core devs are not happy with how things are managed.

And I'm not attacking anyone, it's just debate and criticism.

Savy?

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:54:07 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> You are niave and misinformed, alot of people, even core devs are not happy with how things are managed.
>
> And I'm not attacking anyone, it's just debate and criticism.
>

Its people like you who are the problem.

In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them personally.

It is the contributors job to convince not the other way round.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:58:44 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:54:07 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>> You are niave and misinformed, alot of people, even core devs are not happy with how things are managed.
>>
>> And I'm not attacking anyone, it's just debate and criticism.
>>
>
> Its people like you who are the problem.

Are we in Noth Korea? People who dare to criticise the Dear Leader are "problems?

Will someone come round my house and put a bag over my head and drag me away?


> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them personally.

Look, the reason there are two people to review the DIPs is so that Walter doesn't get to review his own DIPs. That process was set up to avoid conflict of interest. Avoiding conflict of interest is as much as about appearance is it is about actually avoiding it. The process needs to be open and to garner the trust of the people involved.

So unless something has changed Walter agreed with this. I'm saying the current situation with the SI DIPs was the same but actually worse.

You can't avoid that people will see alterior motives in what you do, just as its near impossible to be impartial if you also have a horse in the race.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with whether Walter can do whatever he wants, he can obviously, but that doesn't mean he should be immune from critisism in how things are run.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 11:40:31 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>
>> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them personally.
>
> Look, the reason there are two people to review the DIPs is so that Walter doesn't get to review his own DIPs. That process was set up to avoid conflict of interest.

I understand your desire to have Walter more explicitly detached from decisions about his own DIPs. But, you are aware that DIP1027 was rejected, right?

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:28:31 UTC, M.M. wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 11:40:31 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>
>>> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them personally.
>>
>> Look, the reason there are two people to review the DIPs is so that Walter doesn't get to review his own DIPs. That process was set up to avoid conflict of interest.
>
> I understand your desire to have Walter more explicitly detached from decisions about his own DIPs. But, you are aware that DIP1027 was rejected, right?

It's more that he should not have used the talk about 1036 to bring back his own DIP that had already been rejected. Not when he's the final judge. Is disrespectful and unfair.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:41:17 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:28:31 UTC, M.M. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 11:40:31 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>>
>>>> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them personally.
>>>
>>> Look, the reason there are two people to review the DIPs is so that Walter doesn't get to review his own DIPs. That process was set up to avoid conflict of interest.
>>
>> I understand your desire to have Walter more explicitly detached from decisions about his own DIPs. But, you are aware that DIP1027 was rejected, right?
>
> It's more that he should not have used the talk about 1036 to bring back his own DIP that had already been rejected. Not when he's the final judge. Is disrespectful and unfair.

I myself saw his comparison of DIP1027 to DIP1036, YAIDIP, and DIP1036e as demonstrating his overall general wish for "simple solutions" with "little corner and special cases"; in this view, bringing back DIP1027 demonstrates this part very concretely (instead of abstractly). But I certainly see that using your lenses the overall approach of Walter can be seen as pushing for own solution (and not arguing for a general simpler solution).

I personally thought that the discussion could have been swifter (but then again, we would perhaps end up with DIP1036 instead of DIP1036e) and, somehow, more open to listening (well, at least from the how-it-looks-like-on-the-forum point of view).

Overall, I understand that there are people frustrated with the overall situation (communication/discussion/rules-of-contribution/etc) how dlang is rung, and I also understand that some feel this is a long-term accumulation of frustrations. (I would just like to point out that DLF is acknowledging much of that and commits to improvements. I understand that some do not see this.) But talking about principles and communication, I think that refusing to write a documentation for a new feature is not the nicest way to communicate. (While I understand this all came from a culmination of frustration over previous discussions on a related feature.)