Fine is usually more than enough since fine is usually better than 90% of what's out there. I've been reviewing design shops for a site redesign and most of them not only have less-than-fine* websites, but their clients' websites are equally less-than-fine.
* i.e. bland, uninteresting, a mess under the hood, mildly unusable, ...
Evolutionary - no fine is not enough. If you can choose between bad, fine, great - you pick great unless it's takes too much resources (time/currency/etc). In this case the constraint are "open source workload" which is quite massive nowadays - then consider a "fine" site hacked together in an hour a good solution on this problem is "not enough".
Now it seems the picked path for ruby-lang is open contribution, that is not just "fine" - it's great.
* i.e. bland, uninteresting, a mess under the hood, mildly unusable, ...