www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DIP Reviews: Discussion vs. Feedback

reply 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/
Jan 26
next sibling parent 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
Jan 26
prev sibling next sibling parent 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
Jan 26
prev sibling next sibling parent 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!
Jan 27
prev sibling parent 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!
Jan 27