On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 12:47:04 UTC, matheus wrote:
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 12:28:56 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Although it seems an improvement has been made to how he needs
to respond to the DIP assessment. It should also include a
statement from Atila as well given his position.
One thing that need to be clear and for I read it was not
remotely answered from Walter is why this DIP process and
discussion exists if in the end like it or not it will be
incorporated.
As an end user, I'd like to know if this language will be
guided by community or one person, because it seems the
"democracy" is very shallow right now.
And again why waste time with this process plus 2 rounds of
discussion?
I mean just do it and tell in this announcement section about
the feature.
Matheus.
There is no democracy. The decisions are simply made by Walter
and Atila.
From my understanding, the purpose of the DIP process is to
improve DIPs and find any potential flaws before a final decision
ist made by the two language maintainers. However, how much of
the review the maintainers take into account is their own
decision.
In theory, this results in much higher quality DIPs and the
chance of a DIP that actually makes it to the formal assessment
stage to be accepted is a lot higher. It also seems to work quite
well when the DIP author is not one of the language maintainers.
From my experience, the quality of those DIPs really has gone up
by a lot. There is also a lively discussion about each DIP and
the authors are actively participating. It is in their own
interest to do so because getting feedback and addressing it
increases the quality of the proposal which in turn increases the
chance of the DIP being accepted.
If the author is one the language maintainers, this doesn't seem
to work that well though. There is simply less motivation for
them to do all of that because in the end, they can make the
decision by themselves anyways. I am not saying that the language
maintainers do this on purpose, it is simply a psychological
effect. And the result can be seen very clearly when comparing
review threads for DIPs from the language authors with review
threads for DIPs from others.
In defense of the language authors, it has to be stated that the
situation has improved quite a bit over time. Examples of this
are how DIP1017 was handled or the fact that Walter now gave a
reasoning for his decision regarding DIP1028 (even if only after
being asked to do so). But unfortunately, sometimes it still
really feels like DIPs from the language maintainers and DIPs
from others are handled quite differently by the maintainers.
