On 12/25/2022 9:16 AM, Paul Backus wrote:
> D's lack of manpower is often lamented on this forum. If our current approach to leadership and governance is costing us manpower, that seems to me like a serious bug in the D project, which we ought to prioritize fixing.

The nearly 100% track record of successful contributions is at odds with it being impossible to contribute. Their successful PR rate is better than mine. I don't know what to say.

On 12/25/2022 7:58 AM, GrimMaple wrote:
> Getting PRs in should be an achievement, it should be a part of working process.

We do have a high bar for accepting PRs. The quality of ones that are accepted has increased significantly over the years.


> I also heavily dislike how you argue the experience of getting PRs in by how much of them exist.

I wasn't arguing. I was pointing out their track record of success.

> If people tell you their experience sucked, then you should listen to it and try to improve it.

I'm listening.

On 12/25/2022 7:59 AM, GrimMaple wrote:
> Of course, I meant it shouldn't be an achievement.

Writing quality work is an achievement.

On Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 22:50:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 9:16 AM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> D's lack of manpower is often lamented on this forum. If our current approach to leadership and governance is costing us manpower, that seems to me like a serious bug in the D project, which we ought to prioritize fixing.
>
> The nearly 100% track record of successful contributions is at odds with it being impossible to contribute. Their successful PR rate is better than mine. I don't know what to say.

Nobody in this thread said it was impossible to contribute. What they said is that is an incredibly frustrating process.

On Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 22:53:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 7:58 AM, GrimMaple wrote:
>>
>> I also heavily dislike how you argue the experience of getting PRs in by how much of them exist.
>
> I wasn't arguing. I was pointing out their track record of success.

seriously? "I wasn't arguing I was just pointing out why they are wrong to feel the way they do?"


>> If people tell you their experience sucked, then you should listen to it and try to improve it.
>
> I'm listening.

No you're not. If someone says "I find this process incredibly frustrating" and you reply "but you have 100% success rate, and that's better than me", you are firstly telling them that they are wrong to feel the way they do, and that secondly you have it worse.

On Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 22:50:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 9:16 AM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> D's lack of manpower is often lamented on this forum. If our current approach to leadership and governance is costing us manpower, that seems to me like a serious bug in the D project, which we ought to prioritize fixing.
>
> The nearly 100% track record of successful contributions is at odds with it being impossible to contribute. Their successful PR rate is better than mine. I don't know what to say.

Neither I nor anyone else in this thread has claimed that D is *impossible* to contribute to, merely that contributing to D is more frustrating than it needs to be.

Do you dispute this? In your view, is it the case that contributing to D is, at this very moment, as smooth and frictionless a process as it could ever possibly be, without compromising on quality?

On 12/25/2022 4:16 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
> Do you dispute this? In your view, is it the case that contributing to D is, at this very moment, as smooth and frictionless a process as it could ever possibly be, without compromising on quality?

I don't know how to have quality with a frictionless process. It's like that old maxim:

1. quality
2. cost
3. time

Pick two.

On 12/25/2022 4:12 PM, claptrap wrote:
> If someone says "I find this process incredibly frustrating" and you reply "but you have 100% success rate, and that's better than me", you are firstly telling them that they are wrong to feel the way they do, and that secondly you have it worse.

Or asking for an explanation.

On Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 17:16:01 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> If multiple contributors with significant track records of success are telling you that the frustration of working with D's leadership has driven them to stop contributing, how many potential contributors would you estimate have given up before even getting to that point?
>
> D's lack of manpower is often lamented on this forum. If our current approach to leadership and governance is costing us manpower, that seems to me like a serious bug in the D project, which we ought to prioritize fixing.

Well, to take a higher ecological viewpoint, I would suggest that 'the priority effect' may be at play here.

i.e. the prescence of a species that arrived first, can have an effect on the species that arrive later.

This can often result in unbalanced, asymmetric, competitive interactions.

So, to my hypothesis: Competitve priority effects may be occuring here.

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 01:29:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 4:16 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> Do you dispute this? In your view, is it the case that contributing to D is, at this very moment, as smooth and frictionless a process as it could ever possibly be, without compromising on quality?
>
> I don't know how to have quality with a frictionless process. It's like that old maxim:
>
> 1. quality
> 2. cost
> 3. time
>
> Pick two.

I agree that the friction cannot be reduced to zero. I still think it is probably possible to reduce it to, say, 50% of its current amount, without compromising on quality.

In the same way that software can have both essential complexity and accidental complexity [1], a process can have both essential friction and accidental friction. What I and others are suggesting is that a lot of the friction in D's current contribution process is accidental, not essential, and could be removed without making the process less effective.

For example: Jonathan Marler says he spent "more time arguing with people than writing code." How much of that argument do you think was productive, and how much was unproductive? Github provides no shortage of moderation tools [2]; I am sure that if we put our minds to it, we can work out some policies for using those tools to weed out unproductive arguments and keep PR and issue discussions focused.

[1] http://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks-NoSilverBullet.pdf
[2] https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-and-conversations