Hi, Benoit.

> - The first step is to bring nurse/rubyspec up to date with
> rubyspec/rubyspec archive's branch.
> I am willing to do that if no one has an objection against it. Any help is
> welcome of course! (just email me)

I will help to this work. 1 month ago, I investigate rubyspec's archive branch.
I found following issues:

 * rubyspec removed to support Ruby 1.9.3
  * but MRI 1.9.3 is ended at Feb. 23, it's not problem now.
 * some spec is failing on 2.3.0

> - The second step is really to choose a canonical RubySpec repository, to
> avoid "death by too much forks".
> This repository should only contain RubySpec tests for practical reasons.
> We should allow many specs contributors to take part in merging changes and
> maintaining specs.
> I think this was a fatal flaw of rubyspec/rubyspec in that too few people
> had the large burden of merging and maintaining the specs.
>
> The main existing repository I see today is nurse/rubyspec.
> I am thinking the process could be similar to handling pull requests on
> ruby/ruby in that some contributors would provide feedback and merge them.
> The CI is very useful in this regard to ensure MRI is not broken
> inadvertently.
> I think it would make sense in that case to move nurse/rubyspec to ruby/rubyspec for clarity.

I agreed with your suggestion. I will coordinate with nurse. Please
wait few days.
(PS. I think it's better to move nurse/mspec to ruby/mspec)

> - The third step is to decide what to do about new specs which are not
> contributed to the canonical repository directly.
> This is worth another discussion and I think it is wiser to first achieve
> the two first steps before discussing this in more details.

this topic is epic for me. we need to finish 1 and 2 steps at first.

-- 
SHIBATA Hiroshi shibata.hiroshi / gmail.com
http://www.hsbt.org/