On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:

> 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).

From the README in the DIP repository:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs

"Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)."

This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.

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.

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.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:52:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> From the README in the DIP repository:
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
>
> "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)."
>
> This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.

Well, the DIP is not finally resolved until the decision is made so it's reasonable to assume that most would believe that the "DIP process" includes the decision making.

Whatever label we put on it, the community is ill served when the number of nominally impartial reviewers goes from two to one.

Am 28.05.20 um 19:52 schrieb Mike Parker:
> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
> 
>> 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).
> 
> From the README in the DIP repository: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
> 
> "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)."
> 
> This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.
> 
> 
> 
> 

From the document https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/process-reviews.md (which the README.md links to as "The DIP Review Process"):

"There are four review stages, three of which are public and open to all participants."

Then it lists:
- "Draft Review"
- "Community Review"
- "Final Review"
- "Formal Assessment"

To me this looks like "Formal Assessment" is part of the process.

All of this doesn't really matter though. It's just words / names. What (some) people want is to change how / by whom the decision is made when the DIP author is one of the 2 language maintainers. If that is not formally part of the DIP process, fine, just change whatever process it is part of (if we actually come to the conclusion that that's the right thing to do).

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

You were experiencing the opposite of this:

	https://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/093.html

When you're looking, nothing happens. But when you're not looking, things boil. :-P


--T

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.

Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about the process you've failed.

The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see this as a problem? Yes or no?

> That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process.

Read this for a second. The *AUTHOR* of a DIP wasn't convinced their own idea wasn't good enough to write a DIP for. This is the equivalent of having a jury start with a presumption of guilt, where the jury is the victim.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:
> Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about the process you've failed.

Nope. In your own quoted chain there, you start by saying "there's a problem with the process" and then stipulate that a response to this cannot talk about the process.

At this point, you're ignoring the rest of the thread for the sake of arguing.

Please stop.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:
> 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:
>>> [...]
>>
>> 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.
>
> Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about the process you've failed.
>
> The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see this as a problem? Yes or no?

The issue was brought up during the discussion round. The thing was, and that was why people were so frustrated, the DIP was accepted as is WITHOUT taking up any feedback. This, per se, was not a fault in the process, but on the DIP author to ignore the feedback.

>
>> That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process.
>
> Read this for a second. The *AUTHOR* of a DIP wasn't convinced their own idea wasn't good enough to write a DIP for. This is the equivalent of having a jury start with a presumption of guilt, where the jury is the victim.

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:
> [snip]

>
> The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see this as a problem? Yes or no?
>

This is factually incorrect.

The issue extern(C) issue was brought up in the initial Community Review by Dennis [1] and Steven [2, 3]. I don't see Walter having addressed it in the initial Community Review. There was greater discussion in the Feedback thread [4] and Final Review [5] by more people. The DIP was also updated to incorporate the feedback [6], though the DIP author did not agree with the criticism. It has also been subsequently updated as part of the formal assessment.

[1] https://forum.dlang.org/post/cbuddhlodnmbczrfhqdz@forum.dlang.org
[2] https://forum.dlang.org/post/qv62af$ui4$1@digitalmars.com
[3] https://forum.dlang.org/post/qv66ii$17eu$1@digitalmars.com
[4] https://forum.dlang.org/post/wkdpnzarkbtqryighzpx@forum.dlang.org
[5] https://forum.dlang.org/post/jelbtgegkwcjhzwzesig@forum.dlang.org
[6] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md