Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-17 19:39:32

On 5/17/2016 10:24 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 16 May 2016 at 16:32, Michał Dominiak wrote:
>
>> A final note, again kind of repeating what Dave said (because I
> think
>> it's extremely important and we tend to forget it these days):
> Boost is
>> supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal
> to
>> 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.

Maybe no one was interested because no one knows what you are talking about.

> 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.

Boost consists of about 130 different libraries. I venture to guess that 
there is not a single library author of those 130 different libraries 
that wouldn't like to see his library used more by the C++ community. 
But why you think that Boost library authors write only for other Boost 
library authors rather than for any C++ programmer is something you need 
to explain in specific terms. Just making that claim does not explain 
anything.