For the record I mostly agree with this; I think it's fully appropriate for Rich and co. to have time to let ideas brew, and there's nothing wrong with a lull in their coding output. My comments in TFA taken out of context seem to imply that his is some kind of crisis--it is not.
On the other hand, if core people are going to slow down for a time, they would be wise to delegate responsibility to those who do want to continue coding on it in the mean time; having simple patches linger for six months (http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/tickets/315) chills the enthusiasm of contributors. Having every single patch need approval of a single person is a policy Clojure has outgrown; somehow I don't think Rich is going to find something wrong with this substring patch that a lesser mind wouldn't have caught. (http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-688)
tl;dr: Clojure isn't dying; it's growing, and the patch submission process needs to be revised.
You are simply wrong about the patch process. It is no longer the case that I am the bottleneck. Many people have worked hard to put in place the organization and systems to make sure this is so. We have meetings on a regular basis, and many people dedicate their Fridays to Clojure tickets. There are several people who vet tickets, and a few who can screen them. Tickets are rarely waiting for my final approval, and rarely waiting long after that for application. And I frequently catch things while looking at them for final ok.
None of us appreciate having our ongoing effort characterized as 'stalled'. Everything in the commit log, Jira and Confluence activity streams belies that. More people are actively involved in improving Clojure than ever.
As for CLJ-688 - it's an enhancement request. Do you think every idea for an enhancement that anyone has should make it into Clojure? I don't - it would quickly become a huge mess. If not, then someone has to look at everything and decide.
Yes, there is a backlog from when it was just me, and it will take a while to whittle down. We have finite resources and have to prioritize. I can assure you we have more important things to concentrate on than your negative index substring enhancement, and are doing so. You'll just have to be patient. Or, if you insist, I'll just reject it now because a) IMO it's goofy, b) you can make your own function that works that way c) we don't get a free ride from j.l.String, d) it begs the question of negative indices elsewhere...
Want Clojure to be a free for all? - Sorry.
Can't cope with the necessity for prioritization given finite resources? - Sorry.
Want top priority? - Sorry.
tl;dr: This blog post is the idle chatter of people who are not involved in the Clojure development process in any significant way. Lau has never submitted a single patch. Apparently his free lunch isn't arriving fast enough.
> None of us appreciate having our ongoing effort characterized as 'stalled'.
Well TBH I'm not to thrilled that a few lines from a private chat would get splattered over the HN front page without much context either.
> Can't cope with the necessity for prioritization given finite resources? - Sorry.
Said resources are a lot more finite than they could be. There are many capable folks in the community who would be willing to help. I brought this up last year and people seemed eager to help, but the official response was silence:
I think you are looking right past the people who are helping, who have stepped up, volunteered, and are doing something. The priority isn't on giving the community fast response times. That is not a goal in and of itself. It is on making Clojure better.
>Said resources are a lot more finite than they could be.
That is arguable. If hundreds of people came up and said they wanted to help there would be real challenges in managing their efforts. It is something we'd have to grow into, in any case. I still contend dropping all impediments to rapid, ill-curated contributions is a recipe for a complete mess. As it stands, the 30-day report here (http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ) says 14 issues created, 14 resolved. So, we are at least keeping up, and many times doing better than that. The best way for folks at large to get involved is to patch bugs. Defect issues with patches are our first priority. I don't see any reason why we won't soon approach the no-known-outstanding-bugs state I used to maintain by myself in the early days. Enhancements are low priority.
Helping out at a higher level is something you earn by participating. If someone I don't know says they've screened a patch from someone else I don't know, what am I supposed to do with that? There is an ever-growing circle of people I trust, and, to the extent they have time to work on Clojure, I am taking advantage of that.
>There are many capable folks in the community who would be willing to help.
Being willing to help and helping are two different things. Helping means doing what needs to be done, not just what one feels like doing. If I gave someone commit rights and they whipped through and applied all outstanding patches they wouldn't be helping me or Clojure, however good it might make the patch submitters feel.
I guess Clojure is just too conservatively managed for your taste. That's fine, but I think it is the appropriate route for a language, even if it means it is somewhat slower and more of a hassle to participate in than the latest github project du jour.
It surprises me that important contributors like technomancy would not have some additional priority or clout. Without leiningen I doubt we would see one tenth of the explosion of interesting activity going on in the community. That said, I don't think anyone would like the results of democracy.