In general, I'm not in favor of changing player skills and changing the rules of the game.
Partly because when I choose a class, I read a lot about skills, etc, and then I choose based on that. Too much changing could ruin the reason why I choose a specific class.
When I read about the skills on the D3 before launch, I thought these skills are so balanced that this game will be really boring. Now it turns out they were not so very balanced. In my opinion, that doesn't have to be bad. I think there's a fun challenge in finding stuff that can be unbalanced. The constant balancing and changing of classes takes away part of the fun, imho.
So if I could buy Diablo 3 off-line version, unsupported without future adding of content and balancing, I'm pretty sure I'd pick that version. Then I would know for sure what I get when I buy the game, my class will not get nerfed or boosted and it would be great fun to play through all classes discoverying the best (or some of the best) builds. Clearly, now Blizz has a goal to make sure that there is NO best build. A noble thought... but, imho, not so fun.
I say: if barbs are OP, let them be OP... There will always be people that find other ways to play barbs and they do that for the sake of an interesting challenge. (I don't play Barb myself.)
Now if someone says Barb was SO TOTALLY OP... then what did the beta testers do all this time? ... if it's really so extremely bad and unbalanced, it's weird it wasn't discovered before...
In the end it's all about game philosophy and what we enjoy. I enjoy that I can rely on the game rules that I read when I start playing the game, and I enjoy to discover "unbalanced" skills myself.
/Craze the Monk