On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:28:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
>>> Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
>>
>> This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....
>
> The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every other DIP.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs

But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.

— Bastiaan.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
> But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.

Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion.

Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).

On 5/28/20 4:59 PM, Ethan wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
>> But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.
> 
> Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion.
> 
> Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).

I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result.

I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth is flat, it's still not.

-Steve

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:58:12 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:57:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> I repeat
>>
>> At some point you should realize that something is going wrong if you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
>
> Yeah. That people are missing my point completely.

Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? Their point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.

— Bastiaan.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:09:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result.
>
> I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth is flat, it's still not.
>
> -Steve

My memes would indeed still apply, with the added benefit that this thread wouldn't be hijacked for pages.

Am 28.05.20 um 23:09 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
> 
> I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result.
> 
> I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth is flat, it's still not.
> 
> -Steve

While there is strong scientific evidence that the earth is not flat, it's not that easy to judge whether DIP1028 in its current for is good or bad.

Personally, I agree with your opinion but not everybody does. And it is still only an opinion (we cannot claim that it is the truth without providing scientific evidence).

There are indeed some arguments that support Walter's point of view. And while I think that they are outweighed by a large margin by the arguments against the DIP, in the end it comes down to weighing these arguments against each other. And apparently opinions regarding the weight of these arguments differ a lot.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 has made that clear.
>>>
>>> I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
>>
>> Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses).
>>
>> If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
>
> I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular is not a failure of the process.
>
> Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not with the entire process.

Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

If the end is the decision, then that’s part of the process.

If the end is “a proposal that can be submitted for consideration to the language maintainers” then I guess the process is fine, but when the dip wither is a language maintainer then it’s a farce instead.

On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>> For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we only had 1, Atila.
>>
>> This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.
> 
> No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial.
> 
> The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.

Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we can't get around this obvious obstacle. Much of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the fact that he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>>> For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we only had 1, Atila.
>>>
>>> This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.
>> 
>> No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial.
>> 
>> The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.
>
> Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we can't get around this obvious obstacle.

I don't think that's necessarily true.
We already have a few amazing people like Ian (GDC), kinke (LDC) or Timon whose opinion I/we value greatly.

Especially considering that LDC and GDC also have quite some stake in development: why can't we give the current lead of both these projects at least voting rights for DIPs?

Note that voting right doesn't mean that they have to vote on every DIP, but surely this DIP is one of the sadly many recent examples where the current one-man decision-making has very obvious flaws.

>  Much of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the fact that he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.

Yes, but isn't this exactly why he shouldn't be in charge of reviewing his own proposals?

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't have.

Let's, for sake of argument, assume this is true.

> he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.

Indeed.

'nuff said, argument destroyed.


But let me expand anyway: Walter likes to talk about aviation safety. A big part of that is remembering that all parts fail and you need to make sure that a failed part isn't a disaster that brings the airplane down. Right now we are very reliant on perfect parts. A cheap way to improve this is redundancy - engineering a 99.9% safe part is an enormous challenge, but having two separate parts each 90% safe with a system that can survive any one of them failing gives you that same 99.9% reliability.

One of the important aspects of designing this system is ensuring the backup system isn't linked to the primary system. Walter has described how Boeing had two independent teams with a third team just making sure the other two hadn't coincidentally came up with the same conclusion or otherwise shared a failure mode.

We might not be able to achieve excellence in individual parts. But we ought to be able to design a system that's greater than the whole of its parts. A big part of that is redundancy, yes, but it is also important to have variety, so the backup part doesn't have the same failure characteristics as the primary.

We shouldn't be looking for two Walters. (well ok, having two Walters would be pretty cool. but not for this purpose). We need diversity here. It is OK to make mistakes, but if the SAME mistake is made at the same time, we haven't gained anything.