Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 2.0 ideas (was Re: Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's c
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-20 12:03:10
On 5/20/16 8:45 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> So my counter-proposal (which I have repeatedly voiced over past years)
> would be to let Boost evolve into an *umbrella organization* with a
> relatively high degree of autonomy for *member projects* to decide for
> their own on things like what infrastructure tools to use (to build,
> test, document, to track issues and feature requests, etc.), so long as
> certain quality standards are maintained.
I think you're on the write track here. But the devil is in the details.
It's always hard to reach a consensus as to what the right balance
between central control and autonomy is. I think that boost has been
very successful in striking more or less the right balance here.
Unfortunately, that leaves a majority of participants dissatisfied. And
of course it gets harder as boost gets bigger.
> At least I don't have any time to meaningfully participate in such
> discussions, and so I put my focus on maintaining Boost.Python as
> independently as possible, simply as a matter of efficiency.
Bravo - it's a common attitude and the most helpful one. I'm sure the
users of he Python appreciate it. By focusing on something specific and
widely useful, you're probably influencing the future of Boost to a much
larger degree then any thread posting would.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk