On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 11:32:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/22/17 6:53 PM, cym13 wrote:
One thing that several of those people emphasized is we need to
improve leadership and decision. "You are trying to do
democracy and democracy doesn't work here" (by a successful
serial entrepreneur). Walter and I have implicitly fostered a
kind of meritocracy whereby it's the point/argument that
matters. It should be meritocracy of the person - good proven
contributors have more weight and new people must prove
themselves before aspiring to influence. Historically, anyone
with any level of involvement with D could hop on the forum and
engage the community and its leadership in debate.
Subsequently, they'd be frustrated with the ensuing
disagreement and also get a sense of cheapness - if I got to
carry this unsatisfactory debate with the language creator
himself, what kind of an operation is this?
Since anything can be debated by anyone, everything gets
debated by everyone. Anyone can question any decision at any
time and expect a response. It's the moral equivalent of
everyone in a 5000-person company building can expect to stop
the CEO on the way to his/her office and engage them in a
conversation of any length. The net consequence is slower
progress.
Where we need to be is fostering strong contributions and
contributors. The strength of one's say is multiplied by
his/her contributions (and that simply means pulled PRs,
successful DIPs - not "won" debates).
I strongly suggest to have a clear and transparent procedure to
collect impressions and suggestion from *commercials* that are
*actually using* the language in production, and separate those
from other things to discuss.
Guru meditation: try not to loose talented contributors
involved... Dicebot, Kenji, Bearofile... what's happened, and
what can be done on this front?
Sincerely
/Paolo
