On Thursday, 6 September 2018 at 09:41:39 UTC, Dukc wrote:
I disagree. Reviews are mainly for giving feedback, not for deciding the fate of the DIP -that's what the formal assesment is for.
For the draft review yes, but the points against the DIP were raised in draft and it proceeded to community review unchanged without any correspondence on the part of the author, except to state that a reason to extend the DIP to extern(C++) function wouldn't work.
IMO, it's enough that the author reads the review and addresses the points in the DIP before the next phase.
I agree, but see previous point.
And not every point has to be blindly addressed,
No, but I expect a fraction greater then zero to be addressed.
the reviewers may be just as wrong as the author.
Yes but the reviewers outnumber the author by a lot, and in aggregate are less likely to be. That's why there are multiple reviewers.
The reviews are still mentioned in the DIPs so they can be considered in the formal assesment, addressed by the author or not. And of course it's always better if the author interactively participates at the review, but it should not be required IMO.
Put it this way: DIP1017 should not go to formal without change, as it did from draft to community (which I don't think should have happened without at least some acknowledgement or refutation of the points raised in draft).
