Subject: Re: [boost] Recent changes in Boost policies
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-30 09:20:37
On 30 May 2015 at 14:36, Peter Dimov wrote:
> > Read all posts from May 14th onwards. There is even more exciting,
> > possibly revolutionary, potential changes being pondered for the future,
> > also mentioned in passing on the above list.
> I read the posts, but was actually unable to deduce what these policy
> changes will be. There must be something I'm missing. Perhaps you can
> provide a summary.
I am very hesitant to do so. Someone from the steering committee is
the right person to do this, not me as I am not privy to committee
thinking. However, the three key seismic changes from my perspective
are (i) in how new maintainers for unmaintained libraries will now be
found (ii) what will happen to unmaintained libraries for which no
maintainer can be found after the new policy has been attempted (ii)
the new infrastructure grants system whereby anyone can petition the
steering committee with a proposal and a cash amount to be paid for
Read the posts again with those three headings in mind. You'll see
how profound a cultural change it is for Boost. In particular, I do
not believe any of those three groups of changes could have happened
whilst Dave was still here, me and him argued about those topics by
private email over an extended period of approaching a decade and he
was profoundly against my opinion on those issues. It was his
opposition to my opinion which in part caused me to not become
involved with Boost until 2012 as we would just have fought on it all
the time (and on other matters we disgreed on).
> On an unrelated note, it was very heart-warming to read this:
> and not see bpm (an existing and working implementation of what this
> initiative is intended to produce) get even a mention.
It isn't personal Peter, not by a long stretch.
The notes written there were Robert's best effort and remembering
what was discussed to help jog our memories later on. They weren't
mean as a technical plan, or even for communicating with the
community as to what was discussed.
We were definitely fully aware of your work, in fact your work was
repeatedly brought up in detail at the meeting itself and there was
some discussion about how complete it was if I remember, and how much
it would take to finish the job, or whether instead just to draw a
line between those libraries it works for and those it does not and
make two Boost distros out of that.
The steering committee has gone off to ponder all those issues
raised, and I would assume will decide on more stuff around CppCon
time. What technical approach is actually taken isn't as important as
how Boost decides to implement the resourcing of any technical
approaches taken, if that makes sense. Once they decide on the
resourcing method, then would start any technical approach decision
making, and I would assume that would mean some form of review and
writing of a preliminary report.
But as I mentioned, I am not privy to committee thinking, and
everything I just said is speculation.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk