Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] 5 Observations - My experience with the boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 17:11:46

On 3/24/2010 4:17 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 19:37, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>> If none of the Boost
>> leaders pay any attention to this situation then the feeling by end-users
>> that a library is not really being supported will continue and people will
>> stop using that library.
>
> Boost leaders?

There is no need to pretend that there are not Boost developers whom 
others think of as the leaders of Boost. While no one may officially be 
considered a "leader" surely there are those who are looked up to as such.

>
>> If Boost had some sort of policy by which
>> authors/maintainers of a library, who are no longer paying any attention to
>> it in response to Boost users, get relieved of the responsibility of
>> supporting the library and someone else is chosen to maintain it instead, it
>> would be good for the end-users and for Boost developers as well.
>
> IMO it'd be better if a group of people took over, for a higher bus
> factor. I would put the library into maintenance i.e. no major
> changes. Any new features could be developed separately and then
> proposed on the list (not necessarily a formal review). I'm not sure
> if it should be formalised though, circumstances might different for
> different components.

A group of people could be fine also. I just feel that when current 
maintainers of libraries are no longer responding to requests and 
queries regarding that library that someone has to take the 
responsibility of seeing if another person, or group of people, can 
maintain the library better.

I am not trying to downplay the enormous work and expertise needed to 
develop a library accepted into Boost in any way. I am just trying to be 
realistic in that a programmer may have other interests in his life 
which preclude the time necessary to pay attention to his Boost 
library(s). At the same time there are many Boost libraries which hardly 
need any more done with them so any large additions to the library may 
better be served by a new library by someone else. This has already been 
done ( such as with signals and signals2 ) and I see nothing wrong with 
this model.

>
>> Of course
>> this would mean that whatever "rights" once a library is submitted to Boost
>> ( I am not a legal expert ) which the author of a Boost library retains can
>> be removed if the author does not support the library any longer, and that
>> this is part of Boost policy.
>
> The boost license is pretty clear. There's no need to remove any
> rights, ownership isn't as formal as you think. It's mostly based on
> respect and convention.
>
> http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt

The license is one thing and even the "Library Maintainer's Rights and 
Responsibilities" which Steve Watanabe links to in another post is 
another, but unless someone with authority decides that library X, being 
ignored by the maintainer, needs to be taken over by another who is 
amenable to fixes and changes, it is not going to happen. The main 
reason is somewhat psychological. If an end-user complains that 
maintainer X is not responding to requests about library X it will be 
seen as a derogatory put down of maintainer X. If a boost developer 
complains it may also be seen as a form of competitive envy. Despite 
your objection to Boost "leaders" someone has to take the bit between 
the teeth in order to effect change.