• Mike Parker (11/11) Jan 26 2020 I'm making a change to the way we solicit feedback during DIP
• berni44 (2/3) Jan 26 2020 +1
• bauss (3/15) Jan 26 2020 Sounds like a solid change!
• Atila Neves (2/14) Jan 27 2020 I like it. Thanks for writing this up!
• Dukc (30/42) Jan 27 2020 I think this new policy wants some further pondering. In the

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

I'm making a change to the way we solicit feedback during DIP 
review rounds. The goal is to separate explicit feedback from 
discussion. Discussion is vital to the process, but it also makes 
it difficult to find the actionable feedback buried in the 20+ 
pages that some DIP reviews generate (particularly Walter's). So 
henceforward, we're going with two threads per review round: one 
for discussion and one for feedback (critique).

It's all laid out in this blog post:

https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/

Also on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/eu4fi8/dip_reviews_discussion_vs_feedback/

berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:

On Sunday, 26 January 2020 at 09:01:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 The goal is to separate explicit feedback from discussion.

+1

bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:

On Sunday, 26 January 2020 at 09:01:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm making a change to the way we solicit feedback during DIP 
 review rounds. The goal is to separate explicit feedback from 
 discussion. Discussion is vital to the process, but it also 
 makes it difficult to find the actionable feedback buried in 
 the 20+ pages that some DIP reviews generate (particularly 
 Walter's). So henceforward, we're going with two threads per 
 review round: one for discussion and one for feedback 
 (critique).

 It's all laid out in this blog post:

 https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/

 Also on reddit:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/eu4fi8/dip_reviews_discussion_vs_feedback/

Sounds like a solid change!

+1 as well

Atila Neves <atila.neves gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 26 January 2020 at 09:01:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm making a change to the way we solicit feedback during DIP 
 review rounds. The goal is to separate explicit feedback from 
 discussion. Discussion is vital to the process, but it also 
 makes it difficult to find the actionable feedback buried in 
 the 20+ pages that some DIP reviews generate (particularly 
 Walter's). So henceforward, we're going with two threads per 
 review round: one for discussion and one for feedback 
 (critique).

 It's all laid out in this blog post:

 https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/

 Also on reddit:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/eu4fi8/dip_reviews_discussion_vs_feedback/

I like it. Thanks for writing this up!

Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 26 January 2020 at 09:01:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm making a change to the way we solicit feedback during DIP 
 review rounds. The goal is to separate explicit feedback from 
 discussion. Discussion is vital to the process, but it also 
 makes it difficult to find the actionable feedback buried in 
 the 20+ pages that some DIP reviews generate (particularly 
 Walter's). So henceforward, we're going with two threads per 
 review round: one for discussion and one for feedback 
 (critique).

 It's all laid out in this blog post:

 https://dlang.org/blog/2020/01/26/dip-reviews-discussion-vs-feedback/

 Also on reddit:

 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/eu4fi8/dip_reviews_discussion_vs_feedback/

I think this new policy wants some further pondering. In the 
feedback theard, if the DIP author replies and the reply 
indicates that he/she has missed the point of the review, we have 
a problem. The reviewer cannot answer to the author in the 
feedback theard, so it has to be done on the discussion theard. 
With high likelihood, the author will miss the reply on that 
another theard, and the misunderstanding remains in effect.

I think you should let a reviewer to answer to the author in the 
feedback theard, when the intention is clarify the review. 
Replying just to disagree with the author, or to comment other 
reviews still belongs to the discussion thears. That's the 
minimal fix.

However, I suspect there is an alternative arragement, which if 
as follows:

The manager will still create only one feedback theard, where 
peaple can freely about the DIP and all the reviews given. But to 
provide a real review, the reviewer will open a new theard and 
drop a link to to it in the general theard. In the personal 
review theard, only the reviewer, the author and the DIP manager 
can talk, and the rules are the same as in the "feedback" theard 
in the "minimal fix" I described above. To force people to give 
reviews instead of just bikeshedding in the general theard, there 
could be a rule that only those who have left a review can 
participate in the general theard.

After the review, the DIP manager will only check the reviews for 
the review summary. I think this would increase the quality of 
the reviews, as each reviewer can talk with the author without 
having the concurrent conversations to drown each other.

Thanks for the blog post!