On 06/15/2016 01:04 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > My opinion in the matter is: there must be some protocol that guarantees > consideration by the leadership. Can it be abused? Yes, just like > standardization processes can and are, just how legal systems are, etc. > But by and large they are a good thing, and we need to have one. For my > part I'd be hypocritical if I can afford time to participate in the > meandering chatter on the forums, yet refuse to devise a way for the > appropriately determined to get my attention. > > <snip> > > DIPs should be more structured themselves. To the extent we preserve > structure from the wiki DIPs that should be clearly stated and > templated. Probably we need more than that, seeing as plenty of poor > DIPs do follow the required structure. I'm thinking at least a PR > against the language/library specification showing what changes to those > would be needed in order to describe the proposed feature. > > Generally, let's get this done. Thanks Dicebot for the initiative.
Thank you very much for commitment. I got some valuable feedback, need to think about it and incroporate into another iteration of proposed process this weekend (sadly, as I have mentioned before, I can only afford large time commitment one day a week). I will take this and earlier Walter reply as preliminary conceptual agreement - let's get to more technical details in that case!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
