On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of usefulness.
>
> Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review

There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP process already made by others. I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any way unless and until it is significantly changed.

On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature
>> would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of
>> usefulness.
>>
>> Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review
>
> There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the
> DIP process already made by others.

You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any
standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This
is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to
suggestions on how to improve it.

> I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any
> way unless and until it is significantly changed.

What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things better?


Thanks,

Andrei

On 11/18/16 12:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things
> better?

s/2002/1002/

On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:10:53 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
> On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
> > On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of usefulness.
> >>
> >> Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review
> >
> > There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP process already made by others.
>
> You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to suggestions on how to improve it.

Yeah. This new process is a direct result of concerns and complaints about the way we've handled DIPs historically and is a huge improvement. All of the complaints that I remember seeing have to do with how DIPs have been handled historically. We can't improve things if we don't know what the problems are.

Regardless, I have to say that dicebot really deserves our thanks for getting the DIP process to where it is now. The way it was going, DIPs were almost always simply DOA, because they almost never went beyond the initial newsgroup discussion. Now, we have an actual process that leads to a resolution - even if it's not necessarily the resolution that the person creating the DIP wants.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 11/18/2016 06:09 PM, pineapple wrote:
> There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP process already made by others. I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any way unless and until it is significantly changed.

There seems to be a recurring misconception that submitting a DIP is somehow doing language developers a service. It is exactly other way around - the whole DIP process is designed to help those who are willing to commit hard and selfless work to get something into language. There is hardy any lack of ideas about language improvements at any time.

I consider DIP process to fail when one of specific case happens: there is someone willing to commit but that person doesn't get deserved feedback. That was very clearly said in my explanations of the rationale which got published on dlang blog and yet seems to come as surprise.