Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 09:51:25

> On May 19, 2016, at 3:32 AM, Rob Stewart <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On May 17, 2016 1:27:20 PM EDT, David Sankel <camior_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
>> After the so-called top-down transition to git
> 
> What does "so-called top-down transition" mean? There was near consensus to transition

I don’t remember there being consensus.

> , the Steering Committee decided it was worthwhile and that the preparatory work sufficient to proceed, so the SC decided we should make the transition. It's not as if the SC had a meeting to decide that Boost should switch to git and imposed its will on the community.
> 
>> bad for insiders), the steering committee somehow came to the conclusion
>> that their job wasn't to steer.
> 
> The SC's job, from the beginning, was to represent the community when necessary,

The purpose of the steering committee is to protect the vision of boost. 

> which applies particularly to finances, to respond to requests for action or policy, and to make decisions for the community when needed for reasonable progress and consensus is elusive. It was definitely not formed as a governmental body directing the community.
> 
> Beman, of all people, should know about the vision and intent of Boost. As a member of the SC and larger Boost Community, he's certainly in a position to question the SC's behavior relative to his vision.

As well as David Abrahams would know the purpose of the SC, and its purpose and intent is not for what you said.

> 
>> Boost cannot evolve the way it has in the past. When it was getting
>> started, we didn't have over-representation of groups who benefit from
>> the status-quo. We didn't have the idea of servicing the "Boost community"
>> instead of the "C++ community".
> 
> The only group I can think of that fits your description is the library maintainers. Since there are now many more than when Boost was first started, consensus becomes harder to achieve and change is harder to justify.
> 
>> Either the steering committee will step up
>> to protect the original vision of Boost, or the vision of Boost will
>> change to serve the insiders.
> 
> I don't know what you think the SC should be doing, but hasn't done, to "Make Boost Great Again," to borrow a current, but vague, campaign slogan.

He’s referring to the meeting that happened at C++Now with the future of boost. Unfortunately, I believe that its not recorded. Perhaps someone else can pass along some notes of this meeting.

Thanks,
Paul