I'm not certain how you concluded Go was the Cathedral option. I came to quite the opposite conclusion: you'd better cross yourself and genuflect in Rust.
Go started out to address the problems of a particular large corporation with a gigantic C++/Python codebase, and was conceived by a small team of well respected industry experts.
Rust started out as the new generation engine of an open source browser, conceding that no existing language met its needs, and has been community driven since that point, often making breaking changes in pursuit of the ideal.
Go has indeed been very open to community input, but of the two, it seems clear that Rust is the bazaar, and Go is the cathedral, no? I'd love to hear how you arrived at a conclusion to the contrary.
From the outside, Rust and Go were both originally developed by corporations eventually with community involvement. The credit line for Rust has been changed from the original Mozilla to the Rust Project Developers. Go has remained Google.
But I don't see this corporate history as at all indicative. By comparison, Unix was originally developed by Ma Bell whereas Lisp was developed by a community. My view is based more on the resulting languages rather than the process that got them there.
To be fair, Mozilla is a very different sort of corporation than Google. Notably the Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation which is a non-profit.
(I don't disagree with the premise though, Go does seem to be less community-driven than Rust; e.g. Rust has 3 mozilla employees in the top 10 contributors for the most recent release[0], where as Go has 9 Googlers in its top 10[1].)
It also seems to require a CLA and a bunch of other barriers. Everyone's on Github - not accepting pull requests on there (without a CLA) limits the contributor pool.
ever since its public release in 2009. Google only holds the copyrights for the subset of contributions to Go made by Google employees, but there's no Google credit in the sense you're describing.
