Subject: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community* (was: Re: Reque
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-17 10:24:24
On 16 May 2016 at 16:32, MichaÅ Dominiak wrote:
> A final note, again kind of repeating what Dave said (because I
> it's extremely important and we tend to forget it these days):
> supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal
> serve Boost's community*.
I wanted to repost tagging the Subject field to emphasise this exact
sentiment which might have been missed (by Dave I assume you mean
Dave Abrahams, it sounds like him anyway). I'd personally consider
this paragraph the most important thing in your post and it sums up
my personal position *exactly*.
The usual response is anyone proposing disruptive change to Boost is
"somebody has to lead this out" or "Boost is community led" i.e.
build consensus first. Both those responses do not allow for the
highly disruptive clean fork of Boost necessary to return Boost to
serving C++ at large, rather than the never ending Boost navel gazing
it has become. Such a move can only be generated by non-passive
leadership, and Boost doesn't have active leadership.
But I'll freely admit I have given up on trying to make any
substantial changes to Boost. I prototyped as I said I would a
Boost-lite transition layer suitable for a clean Boost fork which I'm
using in all my own code. Nobody was interested. The community
*likes* things just the way they are: serving the Boost community,
and to hell with the entire C++ community. A shame, and a waste, and
I suspect in the long term self defeating.
-- 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