From: Jon Date: 2012-12-13T02:50:28+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:50839] Re: Ruby Implementers Meeting Summary > Here is a summary of the implementers meeting. I am not an expert > summarizer, so you should also visit the wiki for a full log > (http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/DevelopersMeeting20121210). Thank you for making the discussion available. This level of transparency is valuable even to we of the users/non-implementors clan. As a user (CRuby and JRuby on Ubuntu Server, Arch, and Windows 7) I was very pleased to see the following: [16:19:16] I am not going to stop being the dictator, but I want you guys to participate in the process of improving the language [16:19:28] clarifying a point made earlier: 100% consensus means any no vote acts as veto���so the question is really whether matz can inject a feature into standard ruby without 100% consensus ... [16:20:49] headius, I would keep the privilege, but I promise I will not use it often Design-by-committee, or decision-by-committee, or spec-by-committee (which, regardless of the words used, is the reality when 100% concensus is the process) is bad for users and innovation. It's a very different monster than (improved) lightweight collaboration combined with leadership that (a) recognizes when meaningful course corrections are needed, and (b) takes appropriate and timely action. I feel much better for Ruby's future (both language and the multiple impl's) knowing that spec-by-committee has been clearly rejected. That said, I hope the other points that Brian raised in his design process blog are not dismissed en masse simply because #7 is the wrong way forward. As a user, I'm also glad to see the back-n-forth happening very publicly rather than disappearing into ShadowLand. Or worse, talented devs simply abandoning ship because of frustration, or feeling they have no voice, or feeling ideas for improvements are always rejected without thoughtful consideration. Jon