On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 19:27:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
We commit to be more formal about the process, but overall it
is correct that we have more say in what gets in the language.
Allow me to add a couple of things.
First, this is the way things are commonly done in language
design - a small committee defines a formal process and
ultimately decides on features. In fact it is unusual that we
put up unfinished ideas up for discussion, which we hope has
the raises the level of responsibility in the community. I
understand how what we did has been misunderstood as us just
considering ourselves exempt from the due process.
I'm glad to hear your intentions regarding process, but on this
note I think there's a point that's worth considering.
One of the challenges we have is that a number of talented people
have in the last years become disillusioned with the ability to
get results through the processes on the table, or to have their
feedback taken into account. That means that there's not just a
question of process moving forward; there's a question of how to
undo the credibility gap that's been created by these past events.
So, while I think it's good that you lead by example in putting
complete ideas up for discussion, it's also necessary to lead by
example in actively seeking and taking on board feedback on these
ideas, wherever it comes from (whether through a formal DIP
review, or in discussion on the message boards, or whatever).
This matters because if people can see that their smaller-scale
feedback is being clearly taken into account, it gives greater
encouragement to actually put in the work on larger-scale, more
complete ideas of their own.
To take an example, Deadalnix' feedback on the @nogc Exceptions
thread may not have been actionable, but there was detailed
information there that could have been the subject of future
investigation. It comes across as putting process before
community to insist that this feedback be provided via a DIP or
in the formal review of a DIP
<https://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]>
before it will be taken on board. You have the information; why
wouldn't you engage with it, if nothing else just to show
willingness to break with the way things turned out in the past?
Put it this way: if the complaint is that you and Walter bypass
process when you feel like it to get your own ideas through, a
good way back from that might be to switch the equation round --
to _strictly_ apply process to your own ideas and contributions,
but to actively engage with community feedback and ideas even
when it doesn't go through the expected channels.
Then, if you get some level of progress and increased engagement
with that, you might slowly make the process for everyone
stricter over time -- once confidence in the process has been
re-established.
That general principle -- of applying a higher bar to oneself
than to anyone else -- is one that can serve well in increasing
confidence in leadership.
