Subject: Re: [boost] Recent changes in Boost policies
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-30 15:43:29
On 05/30/2015 06:20 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> 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
> its completion.
Let me first state, Boost *is* a community driven organization and
project. For Boost to work properly we need an active community with
outspoken individuals. Ideally, we have many outspoken individuals with
diverse opinions and rational thinking. In my opinion, Boost works best
when there is disagreement, discussion, and a willingness to fully
understand each argument. We need more involvement from more people so
that we don't have just a few voices driving the community.
I'll respond to these assertions.
i. There is a proposal for finding new maintainers as sponsors. We are
confirming with the Software Freedom Conservancy that such a program
will not violate their/our charter. This is an initiative that was
envisioned, organized, and promoted by community individuals. If there
is a policy change it is how these organizations are recognized. There
has always been commercial involvement in making-Boost-go -- typically
by consultants but also by larger companies who devote resources in the
form of hours and testing equipment.
ii. This isn't our first attempt at a deprecation policy. Rob Stewart is
driving the discussion on the ML.
iii. More information will be coming about the infrastructure grants;
however, the impetus is actually the success that Standard C++
Foundation had with their first grant.
-- Michael Caisse ciere consulting ciere.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk