On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:54:43 UTC, 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.

We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps that might expand the current bureaucracy. The thing about bureaucracy is that it tends to expand, and once it does, it never, ever contracts. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and we shouldn't do anything rash over a single incident (you may argue that there has been more than 1 incident, but I don't think any backlash over a DIP since the new process began has been this severe).

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:48:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>
>>
>> Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.
>
> Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the review process itself.

This is demagoguery. Gregory and Adam did not refer specifically to the review part of the process. And the process overall includes assessment.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00:00 UTC, Meta wrote:
> We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps that might expand the current bureaucracy.

I agree in principle with this. Just look at the C++ board.

But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this situation is not enough.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
> OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!

I wasn't looking either. I don't have a ton of time to devote to non-work activities at the moment.

I have to say though. I don't think I've ever seen the D community this unified.

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.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:04:20 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00:00 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps that might expand the current bureaucracy.
>
> I agree in principle with this. Just look at the C++ board.
>
> But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this situation is not enough.

Yes.  To follow the spirit of the DIP process, if not the letter, every DIP should have a review board of 2 nominally impartial experts representing the dlang community.

To be clear, a DIP author is not impartial.  We'd need another LM (language maintainer) to step in when either of the sitting LMs authors a dip.

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.

Mike has, in my experience, been both efficient at administering the DIP process and open to change.  There's a difference between faithfully administering current policy and believing that that policy is optimal.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:04:20 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this situation is not enough.

American Chopper form: https://imgflip.com/i/435qvq

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.

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.

So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only is not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, the process does not need any change. But at least parts of the community request a change regarding this fact (I am not saying that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating that it exists).