On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 10:11:33 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

Its funny this, as you are the one we should ask this question.

Since you don't like it here, why are you here?

I don't use D so I am just a bystander, but here is a thought.
Try behaving this way over at OpenD and see how open people are.

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 10:06:47 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:

Why not? I get that such PRs are not necessarily net positives in purely technical sense, but if there's no reason not to merge them they can't be big technical negatives either.

If accepting PRs like that helps to keep people around, then considering the morale effect, I'd argue merging such PRs is still a net positive.

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 09:46:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:

People still make references to Tango vs Phobos, which happened years before I even heard of D. I suspect people will be using this current disagreement as an excuse to touch neither for some time. Rightly or wrongly.

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 10:45:18 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:

I'd just like to say something about this. I've seen it repeated that we should delegate, as if we aren't aware of this, or are afraid to do it, or whatever. Well, we are aware of it, and we aren't afraid to do it.

We do it when we can. Two examples currently in progress: Mathias is steadily chipping away at dub issues and Robert is working on the Bugzilla to GitHub migration. These are people working in their own time, on their own dime, to handle things the DLF asked them to handle. Once they became regular members of our monthly meetings, then over time they became integral members of the team. That makes it a lot easier to ask them to get things done. We know what they'd be willing to do.

I periodically reach out to people and ask if they're interested in helping us tackle something. Some tell me they'd like to, but just don't have the time for it. Others tell me they're happy to, then in practice they never find the time for it. That tells me they said yes with good intentions, but weren't particularly motivated to work on that task.

And that's no slight on them. I totally get it. I might ping a time or two over a few weeks, but I'm not going to be pushy about it. Very often, they're contributing to the broader community or ecosystem in other ways already, anyway.

One of my goals is to alter that situation such that when we have any given task, we have a general idea of who would be motivated to work on it. To that end, I've been reaching out to some long-time D users to expand membership in our monthly meetings for the past several months. As a result, we've seen some great contributions that otherwise probably wouldn't have materialized (and that's in addition to the valuable insights and feedback they provide on the topics we discuss). I anticipate that not only will we see more such, but we'll be in a better position to find alignment with things we need to do and the things those members want to achieve, and so we'll be able to delegate more tasks more often, and they'll be more willing to get them done.

Of course, I can't expand the monthly meetings indefinitely, so I'm also reaching out to chat with other members of the community to get a feel for who's interested in doing some of the work we need done and what kind best suits them. The more we can make that kind of match, the more likely they'll be willing to prioritize that work over something they might otherwise be doing with their time.

So yes, we want to delegate. We just have to have the right environment and the right people to do it. We're working on creating that environment for those people.

Yes, we are working with Ucora already. Walter and I are participating in their executive coaching program. We just had a few weeks off for the holidays, but we're back in the saddle this week.

Yes. Unfortunately, slowly is the name of the game for now. But I'm optimistic we'll pick up momentum over the next few months. We've got Ucora's advice and guidance, but they aren't pushing any sort of structures or frameworks on us. We (the DLF) have to build up our processes ourselves in a way that makes sense for us. It's not going to happen overnight, nor anywhere as quickly as we'd like it to. But we are finding our way.

That's one of the things on our TODO list. That falls to Razvan and Dennis as our pull request and issue managers. I've discussed it with them already in our regular weekly meetings.

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 12:50:35 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

It is all good, the only problem in my (with limited information what I can see of course), that DLF acting like a billion corporate, but in reality at least in current situation it is very small start-up..

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 10:47:11 UTC, Dukc wrote:

This is an excellent point that I think Walter and the others who manage this project need to take very seriously. The technical-social balance of this project is clearly skewed, the evidence being a long-term pattern of talented people heading for the exits.

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 13:42:36 UTC, Don Allen wrote:

Not at all a good idea. The D team is the gate keeper of the language and have to ensure that each feature integrates with the whole. Saying yes to every feature by default is complete madness. There is a huge cost to every new feature.

Worth watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXdS3IftP0Y

D is arguably already too full of features because of trying to please everyone.
As someone argued, its better to focus on quality rather than features at this stage.

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 14:03:20 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

When adding new language features it makes sense that the bar is somewhat higher, to the point that the feature has to justify itself. But for internal changes, minor enhancements and bug fixes it's better to have "accept when technically neutral" stance.

For an open-source project contributor enthusiasm is a central resource, much like money is for a commercial company. It's what makes the project to run. Hence anything that people have wish to do on their own initiative should be considered much cheaper relative to the needed man-hours than less popular work. Same for hanging a PR up because of relatively trivial nitpicks. If addressing some nitpicks takes the contributor 30% more time but leaves him feeling like "not going to do again", the cost of those nitpicks was far more than 30% of the original work.