On 05.01.2009, at 16:36, Tommy Morgan wrote:

> What is it that's prevented an 'REP' from being established? I've  
> seen the above
> sentiment tossed around a lot, so if it were a matter of "we don't  
> have anywhere
> to post them" then I'm surprised someone hasn't thrown together a  
> quick little
> webapp to take care of that. Am I just hearing a vocal minority, or  s there
> something else going on there?


I think that if someone puts together a small merb app or rack app or  hatever,
and helps Matz and co deploy it, nobody would object about having a  
more organized way
to propose language/process/stdlib changes.

It would require a shift in perspective about the process though. My  
observations so far (3+ years with Ruby)
are that Ruby people are a bit like children (in a good sense, and  
myself included). They like playing and not necessary like keeping  
things organized.

Python people are more "boring", and this is why IMO they have PEP  
and really well thought out process of 2.5 => 3.0 migration,
  and we don't have REP and any 1.8.x => 1.9.x migration plans. I am  ot bitching/complaining here, I just want to say, this would be a way  ore significant move for Ruby community that a switch from Subversion  o Git. This is it.

MK