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?


Reply via email to