Ada was designed by a team, not a committee, and any sports fan knows there is a big difference :-)
(Robert Dewar)
Long answer:
Both Ada 83 and Ada 95 were designed using a combination of a full-time Design Team, and a larger, largely-volunteer group of "Distinguished Reviewers" (DRs). The Design Team met with the DRs approximately every three months. There was daily e-mail contact with the DRs. In general, the Design Team produced all significant language change proposals, and the DRs, as well as the interested public, provided suggestions andcritiques.
The net result was that the actual designing was done by a small cohesive team with a clear, consistent vision, but the larger DR and public communities needed to be consulted and ultimately convinced of the benefits of the proposal, relative to the cost.
In addition to the DRs in the 9X process, there were also three "user/implementor" teams each of which was investigating the usage and implementation issues associated with various proposals in the context of their preexisting Ada 83 projects and compiler technologies (the teams were Tartan/TRW, Telesoft/Paramax, and AETECH/RR Software).
Another team involved in the 9X process was the "Language Precision Team" which focused on formal analysis of the language proposals, including things such as proof rules, internal consistency, etc.
Prior to beginning work on the revision, there was a 9X "Requirements Team" who gathered, systematized, and prioritized various comments received on the Ada 83 standard into a set of requirements for the revised Ada standard.
The actual 9x revision process took about 4.5 years, which is substantially faster than the truer "committee" approaches, as used by ANSI/ISO C and ANSI/ISO C++, presumably because of the luxury of having a cohesive design team devoted full time to the task.
(S. Tucker Taft)