On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 09:20:12 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 09:09:40 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>
>
> I think this says it all ;-)
>
> https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Special:Search&search=Vision%2F

And yes I do agree that we have been ridiculously slow when it comes to producing vision documents. Part of this I think is Michael being a perfectionist but more generally there is a framing issue in that I think a vision statement has to be a quasi-living document tracked in git and published loudly somewhere rather than a wiki page.

But underneath the overall vision there is still a vast amount of things to organize and measure. The level of granularity I want to attack is not initially the big picture stuff, that's not where the real development work has issues.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 09:27:23 UTC, max haughton wrote:
> ...
> The whole idea behind doing that is to eliminate much of the need for a team at all, it's just code.

Ahh. The holy grail for programmers ;-)

In the end though, it will always come back to leadership, and interactions between people; not 'systems on servers'.

"It seems clear that the success of armies, athletic teams, business enterprises, universities, religious organizations—any collective activity—depends on the leadership of that collectivity."

https://www.hoganassessments.com/blog/personality-theory-and-the-nature-of-human-nature/

On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 10:17:38 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 09:27:23 UTC, max haughton wrote:
>> ...
>> The whole idea behind doing that is to eliminate much of the need for a team at all, it's just code.
>
> Ahh. The holy grail for programmers ;-)
>
> In the end though, it will always come back to leadership, and interactions between people; not 'systems on servers'.

I am specifically talking about building things on servers, because that is something we can actually do. Almost everything you have mentioned so far just isn't doable in the short term. Or actually relevant to what is blocking current progress.

I am happy to coordinate and manage programmers but I just don't think it's a realistic model for the D community because the vast majority are working for free. The dynamic just isn't the same as a company.

Similarly I want incremental progress to be measurable, not to impose a grand model onto the process. This is going to be a matter of working hard and smart, not a battle of management philosophy.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 10:26:14 UTC, max haughton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 10:17:38 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 09:27:23 UTC, max haughton wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The whole idea behind doing that is to eliminate much of the need for a team at all, it's just code.
>>
>> Ahh. The holy grail for programmers ;-)
>>
>> In the end though, it will always come back to leadership, and interactions between people; not 'systems on servers'.
>
> I am specifically talking about building things on servers, because that is something we can actually do. Almost everything you have mentioned so far just isn't doable in the short term. Or actually relevant to what is blocking current progress.
>
> I am happy to coordinate and manage programmers but I just don't think it's a realistic model for the D community because the vast majority are working for free. The dynamic just isn't the same as a company.
>
> Similarly I want incremental progress to be measurable, not to impose a grand model onto the process. This is going to be a matter of working hard and smart, not a battle of management philosophy.

Nothing you've talked about will occur, without leadership and interactions between people. Better systems don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere.

If you're not focused on this, you may be working 'hard', but not very 'smart'.

Also, you do not need to 'coordinate and manage' programmers. You only need to set a clear agenda, with priorites, and measureable goals; which again, requires leadership and interactions between people.

You are correct that better systems are needed (as well) - cause inviting programmers to contribute, by saying ..there's a bunch of bugs in our bug repository, go pick one... is not very motivating ;-)

If there's going to be 'a next phase' for D, it's going to come about because of leadership and interactions between people. That is the only way it can occur.

So I have to disagree with your assertion, that this is 'not relevant to what is blocking current progress'.

If it were me, I 'lead' by saying D3 will be @safe by default. Now, let's get to work on it.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 23:02:54 UTC, forkit wrote:
> If it were me, I 'lead' by saying D3 will be @safe by default. Now, let's get to work on it.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I am trying to stress isn't the scope I'm talking about: You can't coordinate an open source project like this, it doesn't work. The overall strategy isn't the issue, I want to improve the smaller things underneath that. The apparatus for tracking smaller projects simply isn't there.

Have you contributed to D? There is a huge amount of stuff at the bottom of the stack that needs improving and tracking, the actual design of the language is the easy part as far as I'm concerned.

Even ignoring that you're talking about a level of structure that is probably impossible unless the D Foundation itself had a significant number of full time employees, it's just not what I'm talking about.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 23:32:36 UTC, max haughton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 23:02:54 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> If it were me, I 'lead' by saying D3 will be @safe by default. Now, let's get to work on it.
>
> This is exactly the kind of thing that I am trying to stress isn't the scope I'm talking about: You can't coordinate an open source project like this, it doesn't work. The overall strategy isn't the issue, I want to improve the smaller things underneath that. The apparatus for tracking smaller projects simply isn't there.
>
> Have you contributed to D? There is a huge amount of stuff at the bottom of the stack that needs improving and tracking, the actual design of the language is the easy part as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Even ignoring that you're talking about a level of structure that is probably impossible unless the D Foundation itself had a significant number of full time employees, it's just not what I'm talking about.

Well, I agree that we disagree ;-)

You want to advance the D project using 'systems on servers'.

I think it can only advance, through better understanding human and social psychology.

On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 01:03:00 UTC, forkit wrote:

> I think it can only advance, through better understanding human and social psychology.

I am not saying this can be avoided, I'm saying that this a completely different level of abstraction to what I'm trying to suggest by linking the article (more specifically the first step).

This is the absolute basics. There's no point in waffling about psychology if you have almost no way of judging the effect of any changes you make.

On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 01:27:45 UTC, max haughton wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 01:03:00 UTC, forkit wrote:
>
>> I think it can only advance, through better understanding human and social psychology.
>
> I am not saying this can be avoided, I'm saying that this a completely different level of abstraction to what I'm trying to suggest by linking the article (more specifically the first step).
>
> This is the absolute basics. There's no point in waffling about psychology if you have almost no way of judging the effect of any changes you make.

Umm.. psychology is a science, with plenty of peer-reviewed scientific research to back up the claims it makes.

I am unaware of any management/leadership/motivation/decision-making (etc) theories that don't draw on such research. They all involve humans afterall.

If anything I've said is unrelated to your goals fine, ignore it, but it's not 'waffling' - it comes from peer-reviewed, scientific research.

Good luck with your strategy. I hope it works out ;-)