Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 06:17:59
On May 20, 2016 8:05:25 AM EDT, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On 19 May 2016 at 11:24, Rob Stewart wrote:
>> There is, obviously, a vocal contingent asking for more., and
>> that may well be an important, even necessary, change. Specific
>> proposals for changes to the SC, or for the creation of a new board,
>> are reasonable but they would need wide support in the community, not
>> just from a vocal few.
>Average the age of the vocal contingent. You might find it
I'll take that to mean you think the vocal contingent is young and the SC membership is old, on average. Assuming there is such a difference, does that mean one group is necessarily right, smarter, better, etc. than the other?
>Also note the strong correlation between the vocal contingent and
>those working on C++ 14 only libraries.
I've not noticed a correlation beyond, perhaps, the CMake issue, but I'm not sure that C++14 is the dividing line; it may only be C++11. At any rate, splitting Boost along such a line was rejected on practical grounds, as I recall. Most don't happen to agree with you on that point.
>The whole point of a proactive leadership is that they DON'T follow
>the masses. Most will be indifferent. Making Boost great again
>requires decisions not backed by a positive mass vote.
Robert has remarked numerous times that such leadership, in Boost, is expected to come from the community, not from a centralized authority. I know that frustrates you, but that is the authority structure of Boost. It is possible to develop community backing for a different structure, but that doesn't mean the Steering Committee should arrogate that role by fiat.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk