Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

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 
>illustrative.

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.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)