On 11/17/2016 7:30 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 15:26:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
Regardless of the outcome, I just want to commend whoever wrote the rejection
text* on doing such a clear and comprehensive job. I'm sure it must be
disappointing for a DIP author to have it rejected, but detailed, constructive
criticism like this would - for me at least - make the experience worthwhile
and encourage further contributions of higher quality.
* I see dicebot committed, but I'm presuming Walter &| Andrei had a lot of
input and I think i detect recent exposure to the academic review process...
The text was sent to me by Andrei, though I presume Walter did take part in
making the decision :)
Hopefully such high quality and detailed feedback will provide a much more clear
picture about expectations from DIP content and overall chances for various
kinds of proposals to be approved.
I too am pleased that Andrei has set the bar pretty high on both the
thoughtfulness and care with which a proposal is evaluated.
Although I agree with Andrei on the points raised and conclusions drawn, the
wording is all his as is the work put into it.
And a big thanks to Dicebot for putting this review process in place and