Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 09:36:07
On Oct 31, 2013, at 5:08 AM, Ahmed Charles <acharles_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:14:27 -0700
>> From: mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden]
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
>> On 10/30/2013 07:28 PM, Ahmed Charles wrote:
>>> I know you mean well, but I believe the problem is that anyone who has the political capital required to change the process isn't invested in changing it and everyone who is invested in changing it doesn't have the required political capital to change the process.
>> While it might seem as if Boost is aimlessly wandering or lacks direction save the incidental movement caused by the
>> summation of each author's will, there is a group that can intervene and provide uniform purpose.
> I work in the same office as a member of the steering committee (you knew that though :) ) and I've talked to him (Jon Kalb) about this on a few occasions. My impression of the steering committee is that while it was formed to serve lots of purposes, it currently mainly serves in support of C++Now/BoostCon and hasn't really had much impact on the combined technical/political issues that face boost libraries. If there are examples (hopefully more than one) which contradict this, I would like to know.
We voted to start, and then to effect, the transition to Git when the list couldn't reach consensus. We voted on issues WRT the Boost domains and web hosting. We have voted on monetary distributions on behalf of the organization, and not just for C++ Now.
> This isn't to disparage the steering committee, of course, but I know it is the intended solution and I'm trying to get things to go in that direction more and more, since it seems there isn't enough being done.
The Steering Committee will entertain proposals from the community. It isn't our role to create the proposals, though members of the committee can offer proposals, of course.
>> Unlike other organizations, Boost fully respects the will of an author in maintaining their library. I would be dishonest if I didn't acknowledge that this policy has resulted in some personal head scratching with a few libraries over the years. In the end though, I believe that library authors best understand the constraints and intent of their libraries and how to maintain them.
> I'm personally on the fence about this policy. I see some library authors that are responsive and reasonable with their library and I wouldn't want to disenfranchise them one bit. But I also see that it can create an 'old guard' sort of situation that benefits no one. With power should come responsibility and there should be a mechanism that ensures that libraries that stagnate are given new maintainers. I understand that there is a shortage of people signing up to maintain libraries, but I think at least part of that is due to the impression that libraries are only ever 'pried from the hands of their dead maintainers'.
If there's a library that has stagnated, and the maintainer isn't responsive to suggestions, then submit an alternative. Boost.Signals2 and Boost.Phoenix are examples of this.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk