On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 18:44:06 UTC, CraigDillabaugh
wrote:
1) All Phobos proposals must go through
std.experimental.logger
2) It must implement something generally desired in Phobos
3) Implementation is supposed to be at least stable enough to
not undergo a full rewrite after inclusion. Major API changes
are acceptable.
4) Before DMD/Phobos release is made existing packages that
feel stable can undergo a formal review for inclusion in
Phobos main package
It seems to me that number 2 is wrong. It doesn't matter what
is generally desired. The final say depends completely on the
leadership. Yes or No has to come from above. Or am I wrong
about this?
Well there is a voting process for getting libraries accepted
into Phobos, and Andrei and Walter are not the only ones who
vote. However, if you implement something that Andrei/Walter
are strongly opposed to, I suppose the vote could be vetoed.
You know, I don't even like the use of voting when it comes to
important decisions which last forever. I have no mechanism for
determining fairly who has the right to vote and who doesn't.
Well, speaking more specifically, who is *competent* to vote and
who isn't. D doesn't have a Board of Approved Members, and so
putting something up for vote will let any shmoe (such as myself)
actually have an equal share in the decision making process.
I believe in leadership. Leadership requires both confidence and
humility - confidence to stick up for yourself when you know
you're right, and humility to listen to others when you're not
sure of yourself. Leadership is really hard... but I think it's
necessary in all but the most trivial of cases.
Imagine all the people on the spectrum of competence on a given
issue - the most people will be found in the zone of least
competence, and the fewest people in the zone of highest
competence. The only reason for leadership to put something to a
vote is if they can reliably assume that the majority will have a
more competent opinion the issue than they will. There are only
two reasons to do this:
1. The leadership is able to admit that they know so little about
the issue that they wouldn't be able to differentiate the quality
of their own opinion from the majority's.
2. The issue is so trivial that the leadership is willing to
sacrifice the best outcome for the social approval gained by
giving all people the vote.
I don't see either of these happening very often in the case of
D. The first case is lamentable indeed, but I don't think it is
improved by just passing the issue to a majority vote. The best
solution, IMO, is to be honest about one's level of ignorance,
and brace oneself for the onslaught of opinions which follow.
Maybe in the ensuing chaos one will obtain at least a modicum of
competence on what to do.
Also, it's often best to use one's lack of confidence on an issue
to win the favor of the higher ups in the community by deferring
to one person's, then another's judgment, than to just try to win
the favor of a bunch of strangers by letting them all vote.
Anyway, I guess that's just about 5 cents worth of almost
completely unsolicited opinion! :-)
