> And even if they did, Apache and Python are showing successes in that area. I find both of these communities to be huge turn offs. I think Apache projects an

> And even if they did, Apache and Python are showing successes in that area. I find both of these communities to be huge turn offs. I think Apache projects and Python demonstrate varied quality; design by committee. Conversely I find Go releases to be pretty high quality. When they are marginally suspect, I tend to find the strongest critics are members of the Go core team (e.g. future of http, sql packages). > If google wanted an OSS language, they would have non-google committers. I don't buy this line of reasoning. Go has been extremely welcoming to contributors. You don't need to be a committee to contribute. Are the thousands of projects open sourced by corporations under their corporate GitHub account not _true_ OSS to you? > For me, with almost all things google, the risk is when Google grows bored with this and makes all the employees work on other stuff. I understand this, but it's FUD. We've heard nothing but positive feedback from Googlers (no "they won't let us do X"), and if this _did_ happen, I would expect the existing committers to rebel sufficiently (i.e. quit) that this problem solves itself. Until then, I see no cause to warrant a change in management.