grauzone Wrote: > > This is *exactly* why I said DIPs need to have some form of editorial > > control. > > I agree. DIPs shouldn't just be "newsgroup postings with higher > exposure". At least we'd need a higher entry barrier, like some checking > for formal requirements. Yay for bureaucracy.
You already have spec for that purpose. No one prevents you from getting something into it right from NG. NG posts just go in vain. They say Andrei described some problem with properties, but that post is buried somewhere out there. As a result the community lacks communication and almost everyone remain nearly uninformed repeating the same thoughts again and again. Or some problems can even get forgotten in the same way. That's the very purpose of dips - to crystallize proposals in more or less integral and thought-through form. Even failing proposals help exposing problems which will help to come with a better proposals. This can't be done in NG, I think. If dip5 is as bad as opGet_foo is I'll delete it right now.
