Experimentation is great and it would be terrible for Martin and co to have been burdened by the SIP process every time they want to experiment. I think everyone’s ok with the SIP process not being involved so early. My understanding was that between the experimentation and Scala 3.0 final being released, the SIP process would kick in so that people can both 1) understand the proposed changes, and 2) contribute to the proposal, usually to strengthen it. It doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Even yourself is expecting that “the SIP process will be observed for most changes within the mainline language path once Scala 3 final is released” which doesn’t make sense to me because once it’s released we become slaves to backwards-compatibility (unless a feature is hidden behind a
-Y flag) and major changes either become very slow to implement (eg. waiting 3 years for 3.1) or impossible until 4.0.
According to the more recent comments (kind of like rumour but by people in the in-group which wouldn’t be the case if we have an official SIP), when 3.0 is released significant whitespace is going to be enabled by default, and won’t be considered experimental. Once that happens, a retrospective SIP would be very limited in terms of efficacy. It’s like me building a granny flat for myself in your backyard, all the while saying “don’t worry, once it’s built and I move in, we can have a discussion about it”.
I mean I’d actually be fine if Martin just said “our team gave this a lot of thought, we’re just going to do what we believe is best.” The mixed messages, lack of clarity and (what seems to me to be) contradictory behaviour is the problem. SIPs or no SIPs anymore? SIPs only for some? What’s the “some” criteria? If SIP for this then when? If post 3.0, why and how limited? Shouldn’t the Scala Center being publicly clarifying this because the current state doesn’t seem to match the process last publicly declared by the Scala Center?