Yeah, let's be real -- just as with Go Modules and the "try" proposal, there is no "open source process" when it comes to major language changes; the decision is always ultimately made by the core team, not the community. And I agree with you -- this arrangement is fine! I strongly prefer it that way. The Go devs have an excellent track record of getting it right, even when it went against the prevailing wisdom.

Personally, I'm opposed to adding generics, but if we have to...I trust the Go devs to do it better than just about anyone else.

Oh, come now, calling C++ templates generics belittles their power. :p Honestly, the one thing I miss in any language is the complete power of C++ templates, but I definitely understand others' reluctance to include something like them in their language. Something that allows me to write simple generic functionality a la Java generics and not have to write the same code multiple times is good enough for me in go.

Luckily I do have some ability to use C++ at my current job, so I can get my fix again there :)

One of the features of Go is that everyone writes code the same way, which means anyone can easily read anyone else's code; there's only one paradigm; idioms and conventions are strong across the community. This property exists precisely because Go isn't very expressive, but the generics proposal will make Go more expressive and in all likelihood the ecosystem will become more diverse accordingly. Whether this is a positive or negative depends on how much you value expressiveness versus standardization.

I don't think the op intended "storm" to be negative here. Just to say that there are loads of changes coming soon.

> But is that really bad for Go?

No, I don't think so.