DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md

On 21.05.20 15:51, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.

just another brick in the wall

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 13:51:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md

I guess they be more open to dips that fixes holes in the "safe by default" feature then.

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 13:51:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md

"without comment" - even though there were a lot of unaddressed problems :/

Great! So what's the entire point of this process?
To give people the illusion of progress and participation?

Why we can't we have a technical board where the community can vote in experts and potentially companies could even buy a seat for $$$ which would mean a lot more for them than the current very vague sponsorship options.
I'm aware that Walter doesn't like the idea of giving up ownership, but it makes all the other people question why they should still bother with this process and not simply fork and move to an open, transparent development...

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:14:02 UTC, Seb wrote:
> Why we can't we have a technical board where the community can vote in experts and potentially companies could even buy a seat for $$$ which would mean a lot more for them than the current very vague sponsorship options.

ditto, I think we should have like a seven person elected DIP committee who pass/fail things by majority vote. It is obvious to me that the current process is totally useless.

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:32:32 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:14:02 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> Why we can't we have a technical board where the community can vote in experts and potentially companies could even buy a seat for $$$ which would mean a lot more for them than the current very vague sponsorship options.
>
> ditto, I think we should have like a seven person elected DIP committee who pass/fail things by majority vote. It is obvious to me that the current process is totally useless.

Exactly and I even remember there was even a discussion about this on reddit (/r/programming) sometime ago where someone was pointing the flaws on D, and someone said the DIP process was one of them, and there were some known people around here replying that comment saying it was not the case.

The discussion topic about this DIP (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wkdpnzarkbtqryighzpx@forum.dlang.org) had 210 replies, some concerns and in the end was ACCEPT WITHOUT ANY COMMENT.

This is what I call a waste of everybody's time.

SG.

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:14:02 UTC, Seb wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 13:51:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md
>
> "without comment" - even though there were a lot of unaddressed problems :/
>
> Great! So what's the entire point of this process?
> To give people the illusion of progress and participation?
>
> Why we can't we have a technical board where the community can vote in experts and potentially companies could even buy a seat for $$$ which would mean a lot more for them than the current very vague sponsorship options.
> I'm aware that Walter doesn't like the idea of giving up ownership, but it makes all the other people question why they should still bother with this process and not simply fork and move to an open, transparent development...

I honestly don't know if that would help. We'd be moving from a system where Walter makes decisions based on his mood on a particular day to one where others make decisions based on their moods on a particular day. The only thing worse than letting one person choose what to implement is having a group of people choose what to implement.

Everyone has their own view of what is important. In my case, it's beginners and appealing to less technical users. Others view 20-year C++ programmers that specialize in performance optimizations as the only ones that matter. Needless to say, there's not a lot of overlap in the set of changes we think make sense. No matter who is making the decisions, the tradeoff between ease of use and technical awesomeness will continue to exist.

The problem as I see it is someone making a decision on his own DIP. That just doesn't make any sense to me, and I've stated that numerous times. Walter has a tendency to throw gas on the fire by ignoring much of the feedback and not spending time to understand the points others are making when he does respond. I really think you should have to convince *someone else* that your proposal is reasonable.

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:48:22 UTC, SashaGreat wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:32:32 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 16:14:02 UTC, Seb wrote:
>>> Why we can't we have a technical board where the community can vote in experts and potentially companies could even buy a seat for $$$ which would mean a lot more for them than the current very vague sponsorship options.
>>
>> ditto, I think we should have like a seven person elected DIP committee who pass/fail things by majority vote. It is obvious to me that the current process is totally useless.
>
> Exactly and I even remember there was even a discussion about this on reddit (/r/programming) sometime ago where someone was pointing the flaws on D, and someone said the DIP process was one of them, and there were some known people around here replying that comment saying it was not the case.
>
> The discussion topic about this DIP (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wkdpnzarkbtqryighzpx@forum.dlang.org) had 210 replies, some concerns and in the end was ACCEPT WITHOUT ANY COMMENT.
>
> This is what I call a waste of everybody's time.

Completely agree. The way DIPs are being handled is quite disappointing
and unproductive. If the authors aren't even intending to address (or
even acknowledge) difficult comments, why even write a DIP and have
the community spend time on it at all?

It also is not very encouraging to potential DIP authors who aren't
Walter (or Átila or Andrei).

On 5/21/20 12:14 PM, Seb wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 13:51:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md
> 
> "without comment" - even though there were a lot of unaddressed problems :/
> 
> Great! So what's the entire point of this process?
> To give people the illusion of progress and participation?

Agree. I will not be participating in the DIP process from now on. It is a complete waste of time. Walter should just make the changes he wants and not bother with the facade of discussion.

-Steve

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 13:51:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without comment.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md

As others have mentioned, this really is a farce. I understand that not everybody will be happy with every decision but the fact that there is not even a comment is just disrespectful towards all the people that put in a lot of effort to review the DIP. How can you seriously expect them to continue to do that if you treat them like this? Don't you think their work is valuable? If not, why bother with the DIP process at all? It just seems like a total waste of everybody’s time. I am really disappointed about this...