Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Derek Parnell wrote:
> > The D-Team should be dedicating resources to ensuring that the D1
> > implementation and D1 documentation are in alignment with each other.
> >  By dedicating, I mean that is all that this D1-subteam of the D-Team
> >  work on - no D2 work at all. Any D1 fixes that need to be propagated
> > to D2 should be done by the D2-subteam. Priority should be given to
> > getting D1 completed.
> 
> Well thank you General :o).
> 
> Derek, I have all respect for you and your contributions to D. The response below does not have the slightest intent to pick on you but to rein in an unhelpful pattern in this group.
> 
> I invite you to see the paragraph quoted above through a different pair of eyes - the eyes of someone with a different vision of what should be done for D, and also (most importantly) who believes in it strongly enough to invest their own non-existing free time  in effecting that vision.
> 
> I confess that this couch quarterbacking is mightily frustrating for both Walter and myself. All the pieces are there for anyone with a vision to make it happen. I understand you wanted to share your opinion on what would be best for the future of D, and that's laudable in and by itself, but such opinions have lately become a choir of whines fulfilling a "if I want something from D, and I expect Walter to do it" pattern. We need the exact opposite - if you care, what can *you* do to make D better? D needs action and leadership.

Leadership, now there's an interesting concept!

Maybe we should nominate a leader by popular acclaim, then let her lead.

I don't think that Walter has time to be both supremo of development and D leader (pardon the pun) at the same time. In any case it's probably the case that the two roles require completely different mindsets. I remember John Haggins (Zortech), when Walter was working on one of the earliest versions of C++. They were as different as chalk and cheese. But commercially the combination worked for some time.

So since D is now mostly open source, perhaps we should discuss democracy?

Steve Teale wrote:

> I remember John Haggins (Zortech), when Walter was working
> on one of the earliest versions of C++. They were as different as
> chalk and cheese. But commercially the combination worked for some
> time.


I enjoyed working with John. We were polar opposites - skills he had I utterly lacked and vice versa. The combination was much more than the sum.

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Steve Teale wrote:
> 
> > I remember John Haggins (Zortech), when Walter was working
> > on one of the earliest versions of C++. They were as different as
> > chalk and cheese. But commercially the combination worked for some
> > time.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed working with John. We were polar opposites - skills he had I utterly lacked and vice versa. The combination was much more than the sum.

You can say that again!

Steve Teale wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
...
>> itself, but such opinions have lately become a choir of whines fulfilling a "if I want something from D, and I expect Walter to do it" pattern. We need the exact opposite - if you care, what can *you* do to make D better? D needs action and leadership.
> 
> Leadership, now there's an interesting concept!
> 
> Maybe we should nominate a leader by popular acclaim, then let her lead.
> 
> I don't think that Walter has time to be both supremo of development
> and D leader (pardon the pun) at the same time. In any case it's
> probably the case that the two roles require completely different
> mindsets. I remember John Haggins (Zortech), when Walter was working
> on one of the earliest versions of C++. They were as different as
> chalk and cheese. But commercially the combination worked for some
> time.
> 
> So since D is now mostly open source, perhaps we should discuss
> democracy?


Democracy and leadership, mentioned in the same post. (By PP and PPP.) An oxymoron, if I ever saw one.

Coming from a country where military service is compulsory to all, leadership, responsiblility, and comand, are not something you assign at will. That's common knowledge around here.

They're toothless without matching authority, independence (within their domain), and (what I'd call) appropriate slack. And in practice, the individual assigned needs sufficient charisma, needless to say.


Folks more eloquent than I have distilled this into two quaint sentences: "authority without responsibility equals dictatorship", and "responsibility without authority equals bureaucracy".

Out of these two (in a D context), I fear the latter more.