Date: 2002-05-01 06:54:49
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:david.abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> I don't think we have any formal notion of a library maintainer at
> Boost. Perhaps we should? Maybe it we should label libraries
> "stable but
> unmaintained" if their maintainers become unresponsive? Maybe
> unmaintained libraries should be "up for maintenance grabs" after a
> certain amount of time has passed?
> Hmm, where have I read these questions before?
I second that proposal. Right now some productive outcome of discussions
remain hidden in a chain of notes rather than where it really counts; in the
[Maybe that could be yet another burden on the broad shoulders of the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk