A bit further development … Perhaps my choice of wording in suggesting a “language advisory board” might not have been the best, and suggesting that this “board” makes decisions. I did not mean something like a supervisory board or a corporate board of directors that would “govern” LAS’s activities. To drop that connotation, it might be better to call it a “language advisory group”, or “language development team”.
This group of people already exists. They are doing research, looking at what is feasible, what can be prioritized, what might be interesting long term, etc. It is perfectly understandable that they don’t have time to write down everything they are discussing and share it with the rest of us, and open themselves up to even more discussion.
Then there are folks in the community that are very familiar with other languages. Maybe if a way was found to discuss ideas efficiently, they might help those in the existing group by contributing ideas, approaches to implementing them if they are good at Java, etc. I assume these people will find each other and quickly recognize their respective capabilities. I don’t see a problem with people drifting in and out of this core group, for instance participating only until the feature they are interested in, or highly competent at, is implemented.
The core idea I’m trying to communicate isn’t “governance” but a method for discussing language improvements efficiently in 2 tiers, core folks with some expertise, and the rest of us, using recorded Google Hangouts and an issue tracking app. Again, I trust that these people will find each other, and it’s perfectly fine, perhaps optimal, if the group isn’t static. Someone could be invited for one meeting only to present their idea for improving the underlying efficiency of the Java implementation, for instance.
In the end, the language advisory group decision remains a recommendation. Whether or not it gets implemented, and when, still comes down to the resources available to LAS, and how they decide to allocate them.