>> I'm not sure what there is to be non-neutral about :-)

Here's the problem: there are going to be multiple implementations of Ruby in the wild. And for those who run in other VMs, there will be compatibility problems. It's up to the spec to make determinations about what are 'important' incompatibilities vs. 'unimportant' incompatibilities. For example, which Ruby C libraries will be deemed to be 'unimportant' and not something that must be ported to a 3rd party VM in order for that language to be called 'Ruby'.

So, it's in the best interests of the community to have a neutral 3rd party be the 'owner' of the spec, otherwise there may be the perception of, let's say, some large company trying to steer the specification to run Ruby better on its own VM. These are issues that I'd like to get out in the open and have a resolution that everyone is comfortable with, and as early as possible in the process.

Thanks,
-John




-----Original Message-----
From: dblack / rubypal.com [mailto:dblack / rubypal.com] On Behalf Of dblack / wobblini.net
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:58 AM
To: ruby-core / ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification

Hi --

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, John Lam (CLR) wrote:

> 4)      Would it be possible to have RubyCentral act as the owner of
> the project? Or some other neutral party? Suggestions welcome.

I'm not sure what there is to be non-neutral about :-)


David

--
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)