My bad if I am attaching things to you that aren't there. I might be commenting on irrelevant or imagined things but I have no intention of being unconstructive.
I know I talked a lot about the community and moderation, but honestly I don't really have meaningful interactions with the community outside of contributing, so I will take the L and only focus on the language development angle of the situation. My point is, that even if the leadership provides a bad contributing experience, since this rarely results in outright regressive changes in Nim's case, this will not affect most people, even if using Nim usually entails having to contribute to it. People will just contribute less. I'm not even saying this is unavoidable but this is honestly the full extent of the problem and I am just trying to shut down the idea that having to leave the community is a universal inevitability that happens to everyone who uses or even contributes to Nim for an extended amount of time. I am not saying you suggested this idea, but it is a possible view. While I'm not privy to everything you guys and the leadership have said to each other, as evidenced by all these discussions going nowhere or people being straight up silent, there is no constructive discussion to be had in this situation. This means either the leadership is so deeply corrupted that they will never change and it will be their fault Nim doesn't reach its potential, everyone who left is hysteric, or that everyone is doing the best they can do and just have different visions for the language. I described my experience up to this point because I can't see it as anything but the latter case. NimSkull existing is good, it might turn out as an actually good product, but it won't be Nim with good leadership. Again, not that it was suggested, but the idea that people who want to use Nim should just wait for NimSkull to mature is wrong. I think even the NimSkull people will agree with me on this. The reason something like this happened to Nim and not languages like Zig and Odin in my opinion is that those languages are very clear about what their goals are. Confusion around Nim's goals and seeing it as a compiler playground for the leadership is understandable, but it may not be more than a result of poor communication. I understand this point has been made a lot already, and was the exact reason for the impromptu roadmap, but I really don't think it goes any deeper than this. I don't mean to delegitimize anyone's choices. People probably have good points about the way things currently are. But I think the main takeaway shouldn't be "be careful about using Nim seriously _in general_ ".
