On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature
would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of

Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:

There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the
DIP process already made by others.

You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any
standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This
is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to
suggestions on how to improve it.

I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any
way unless and until it is significantly changed.

What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things better?



Reply via email to