Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Experimental Re: [variant] Maintainer
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-03 09:05:52
On July 2, 2015 10:16:57 PM EDT, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Boost once was
> the place to playpen exciting new C++ libraries - if you read this
> mailing list back in 1999-2001, there was a palpable excitement here
> as people tried new things and showed one other what could be
> possible. Rather like in the Rust mailing list nowadays.
> From 2008-2009 onwards things haven't been as good here, and
> especially since Dave left.
You've made this sort of remark before. Dave didn't do anything particularly special except to be highly active and contribute a great deal. (Yes, he provided leadership, but he wasn't alone and others who did so are still part of the community.)
> It doesn't help when members of the
> steering committee conspicuously fail to perform their duties, and
> specifically disavow taking any leadership position except to
> intentionally prevent and inhibit change.
I have no idea to what you're referring, but I highly doubt that this is a fair characterization of any member of the committee and certainly not of the committee itself.
The Steering Committee, admittedly not ideally named, was formed for two key purposes: to be able to commit Boost money, when required, and to make a decision for the community when there isn't a clear consensus, not unlike how a Review Manager considers reviews for a decision but doesn't just count the votes.
Any perceived reticence to make a decision on something may be due to unseen activity or to the misapprehension of what the committee should do. If you have specific concerns, don't malign the committee in this fashion on the developer's list but raise them on the committee list. Others can follow that list, so the discussion won't be hidden.
(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