Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-18 21:00:20

On 18/07/2017 16:12, Jon Kalb via Boost wrote:
> Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our
 > desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and
 > developers alike.

I am obviously biased, so I won't comment on technical merits of this 
desire. Also, as usual in open-source, those who write the most code
get to decide in the end.

However, I can't call this decision process anything but broken. Since 
its founding, Boost was run by open discussions on a mailing list.
There were people whose opinion carried a lot of weight, but that was 
because they wrote a lot of high-quality code and expressed themselves
clearly and openly. Today, we have Boost Steering Committee, whose
members are elected not by developers or users of Boost through an open 
process, but through a closed process at a conference somewhere.

There is no doubt that all SC members mean only good for Boost and C++ 
community, I know many of them as excellent developers who contributed a 
lot to Boost. However, other members of SC are not involved much, and 
some, including committee chair, do not seem to even have commit access 
to Boost. Again, I'm sure everybody meant only best, but something went 
wrong.

Specifically, a committee that is not elected by Boost community and has 
members who never contributed any code met somewhere and made a vague 
decision that was poorly communicated and immediately cost the project a 
person who actually did a ton of work. I'm sure that a group elected by 
and from active developers would have done better at all fronts.

I think that for future of Boost, it would be better if the Steering 
Committee immediately resign, and have an open election process for
its replacement. Personally, I'll be happy to vote for many current 
members, but I feel that a governance based on open process will be
better in the long run.

Thanks,
Volodya