Subject: Re: [boost] [OT] Open Source Forking and Boost (was Re: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)
From: Bruce Adams (tortoise_74_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-16 08:43:12
----- Original Message ----
> From: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]>
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 1:08:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [OT] Open Source Forking and Boost (was Re:
>[SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)
> On 16/12/10 12:04, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mateusz Loskot<mateusz_at_[hidden]>
> >> On 16/12/10 11:04, Bruce Adams wrote:
> >>> I really shouldn't get involved in this but...
> >>> You need to move away from the idea of code ownership, especially
> >>> in the context of a community project.
> >> In spite of the fact you followed up my post, I assume you don't address
> >> the "You need to" directly to me but to the Community in general.
> > Either he meant "You" as in the Community, or "You" as in "Dean
> > Michael Berris" (or in this case, me :D ).
> Based on the chronology and posts sequence, I still claim
> some rights to the title of "You" ,-)
I knew I should have stayed out of this :)
I meant "you" as in the "community" and I meant "should consider" rather than
Its not an order or a criticism just an observation that it seems to work better
in my experience.
> >>> In a way it is a nonsense to require permission of the maintainer.
> >>> [...]
> >> All you've written sounds somewhat obvious to me, indeed.
Good. That means I'm not talking complete garbage. Still you probably wouldn't
amazed at how what is blindingly obvious to one person is clear as mud to
> > Yeah, but what is the current process reflecting?
> > [...]
> That's what I've asked about.
> Currently, the maintainer's responsibilities  are concluded with
> "If at some point you no longer wish to serve as maintainer of your
> library, it is your responsibility to make this known to the boost
> community and to find another individual to take your place."
>  http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html
> Perhaps they should be updated with what Bruce has expalined
> and Dave agreed with.
I'm an outsider with no say in the matter and no experience with submitting
I would have thought that if someone has been trusted enough to have access to
to include their own contributions they can be trusted to access the rest of the
Anyone who abused that priviledge would see it rapidly withdrawn. One point of
is that you can roll back if things go awry.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk