Hi --

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, vruz wrote:

> > If nobody else with large scale experience step up to be the "voice of
> > criticism and care", I think making decisions there is a bad idea.
> 
> Especially being Mr Matz absent from it this year... 
> 
> Pushing standards for technical excellence is okay, it's great, it's
> at the very core of the opensource philosophy.
> 
> Pushing standards for the sake of it ignoring experienced people, 
> ignoring relevant engineering processes:  now that sucks, it's
> anti-opensource.
> 
> Proprietary lock-in,  land-grabbing,  blocking out "competition", and
> defining standards in closed rooms are practices that have NOTHING to
> do with an opensource community.

Open source does not mean that every person in the world is present at
every coding session.  It means the code -- the result of the work of
a person or group of people -- is open, which is the case of
RubyGems.  

> This attempt doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the concept of meritocracy.

I'm not sure it's supposed to.  It's a project -- hopefully a good
project.  If you're talking about its possible eventual role in the
Ruby distribution, that's obviously completely up to Matz.  

> It's not only a bad idea,  it's a SHAME.
> 
> The decision of what's a standard and what's not a standard in Ruby
> has always been taken by  Mr Yukihiro Matsumoto, and it should be kept
> that way.
> 
> I recognise no other authority in the Rubysphere.

Neither does anyone else.  This takes us into realms of speculation
and accusation that are not appropriate and have nothing to do with
the RubyGems project (or any other that I know of).


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net