[boost] Boost leadership (was: Re: Boost.Experimental Re: [variant] Maintainer)

Subject: [boost] Boost leadership (was: Re: Boost.Experimental Re: [variant] Maintainer)
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-06 07:01:07

On 3 Jul 2015 at 9:05, Rob Stewart 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.) 

He did a lot more than that Rob. For a lot of people, including 
myself, Dave *was* Boost for most of its lifespan. It probably didn't 
seem that way from inside Boost, but as an outsider if Dave decided 
you had a contribution to make he acted as the nexus point to make 
that happen. He managed the internal people required to achieve 
outcomes.

Since his departure there hasn't been a dependable, reliable source 
of support for those outside Boost who wanted something fixed at a 
holistic level. Or indeed much support for anyone inside Boost. 
Trying to change or upgrade infrastructure is a Kafka-esque soul 
draining affair - even getting the Boost SSL cert replaced, which 
*still* hasn't happened, has proven that. Nobody knows who to go talk 
to about something half the time because the lists of names 
responsible for infrastructure are so out of date.

It shouldn't be as hard as it is to contribute to Boost outside the 
libraries you maintain. It shouldn't be hard to upgrade 
infrastructure at all. It should be *easy*.

It definitely shouldn't be the case that Boost infrastructure is 
rotting away, and nobody is doing anything about it and any attempts 
to get the steering committee to move on this go nowhere, despite 
repeated attempts by myself and others.

> > 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. 

You can thank Jon Kalb that I did not respond to this section in 
detail.

What he has encouraged me to do instead is to try once again at 
getting you to act, so here we go:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boost-steering/VNYtWFnZuug

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/