From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 06:51:54
I hope to be wrong, but I'm under the impression that, while everybody
recognizes that issuing the libraries that have been detained by 1.34's delay is
urgent, actual activity is stuck on a couple of strategic decisions.
These are the structure of the Subversion repository and the new development
process. Actually, I believe these are symptoms of a single meta-problem: how
are strategic decisions taken within Boost?
I can offer a few proposals:
1) S/he who does the job decides: unfair maybe but, hey,
if you're interested, contribute!
2) The moderators decide: undemocratic, but then these are among the
people that contributed the most and most continuously over the
years; they gained the authority to make decisions on the field.
3) A poll is taken on the mailing list.
4) A non binding poll is taken on the mailing list, then the
5) The review process is used.
In order to avoid the obvious bootstrap problem, I suggest that Doug Gregor and
Beman Dawes get to choose how to reach a decision for the repository and the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk