Idea #1 on integrating RC with GC

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 17:12:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
>> Also I don't think volunteer effort can't be organized. It is 
>> a matter
>> of people identifying themselves as part of well-defined 
>> organization as
>> opposed to independent crowd of collaborators.
>
> I think we could organize ourselves better, too. It's all a 
> matter of finding the right angle. But I think management is 
> not what we need. We need better leadership. Big difference.

Probably. But one can't simply create leadership, this is 
something that comes naturally. Management is easier.

>> It is a common wisdom
>> that if no one feels directly responsible for an issue, no one 
>> will ever
>> pay attention to it.
>
> Yah, on the trite side even I'd opine :o). I said this several 
> times now, and I'll say it again: I have asked SEVERAL TIMES 
> people INDIVIDUALLY to do things that are HIGH IMPACT for the D 
> language instead of something else that was more important to 
> them, to no avail.

Of course, because you can't ask people to fulfill duties they 
have not volunteered to fulfill. This is exactly what I am 
speaking about - amount of people actually working on the 
language is actually very small despite high amount of 
contribution. Most people just do stuff they need or are 
interested in and can't be obliged to do anything else.

Volunteering to do stuff you don't really want is completely 
different thing :) And it needs to be encouraged by something 
more precious than tiny bounties. For example, being able to 
influence language-changing decisions is much more seductive 
reward.

> Of course, it would be learned helplessness to draw sweeping 
> conclusions from the experience so far.
>
>> Do you need any specific proposals?
>
> Suggestions for doing things better are gladly considered.

As I have mentioned on some occasions, I was very impressed by 
both simplicity and efficiency of Arch Linux "Trusted User" 
organization after studying it "from inside". It is group of 
people that are not directly affiliated with Arch developers but 
have volunteered to take care/responsibility about parts of 
ecosystem. They also have power to make decisions regarding that 
ecosystem by formal voting procedure (with strict quorum and 
success % defined). Addition of new trusted users requires 
sponsorship from one of existing TU's and is approved by the very 
same voting procedure. Usually new TU's state clearly what parts 
of the ecosystem they want to be responsible for during initial 
application and this is often taken into consideration by voters.

I think D community can take some inspiration from such approach. 
It will allow to make decisions on more controversial topics and 
speed up process in general by removing bottleneck of your + 
Walter decision (assuming you still have veto votes in case stuff 
goes really bad). Also it gives clear overview of who is supposed 
to be responsible for what and feeling of making the difference 
for those who take part in it.