On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 13:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 12:47:04 UTC, matheus wrote:
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.
The DIP review process is not intended for community approval
or rejection of DIPs. It's not a democratic voting process.
It's intended to elicit community feedback to enhance the DIP
under review (the Feedback Threead) and to allow the airing of
opinions (the Discussion Thread). All DIP authors have the
freedom to incorporate suggestions into their DIP or not, and
Walter and Atila make the decision to accept or reject. If you
look at the history of Walter's DIPs, they *do* take the
opinions into consideration even when he is the author. Several
of his previous DIPs have been withdrawn or rejected.
If a popular DIP is rejected, it means neither of them were
convinced by opinion to accept it. And, as in the case for this
DIP, if an unpopular DIP is accepted, it means they were not
persuaded by the arguments against it.
From my perspective, the process is working as intended,
despite the comments to the contrary in this thread. You either
convince a DIP author to modify his DIP, or you don't. You
either persuade Walter and Atila to accept or reject it, or you
don't.
I think the source of the problem is that Walter's DIPs require
the community to prove that Walter's proposal is so bad that he
needs to reject it. Anyone else's proposal has to prove that it's
worthy of being added to the language. There's a big perceived
gap between those two. As I've said many times, it's odd for
someone to judge his own DIPs, and as someone that is an academic
administrator and runs a high-profile journal, I can say this
type of practice is not the norm in those areas because it
doesn't lead to good decisions.
