Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 11:01:38

On May 21, 2016 9:26:05 AM EDT, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On 21 May 2016 at 6:17, Rob Stewart wrote:
>
>> >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. 
>
>That's by YOUR choice as the Steering Committee: you have the power, 
>but you choose to not use it. You have *explicitly* chosen this 
>policy which is to proactively discourage new blood and new ideas, 
>thus enforcing the status quo. It is equal in every way to actively 
>choosing continuing decline for Boost and the active rejection of a 
>new generation of modern quality C++ libraries for the entire C++ 
>community.
>
>It is in short, an anti-social, anti-younger person, anti-innovation, 
>anti-modern, anti-real-change attitude. I know you don't understand 
>what I'm talking about, after all we've done this topic to death on 
>boost-steering last year, so I'll wrap up by requoting David Sankel:
>
>> 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". 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. This means life or death for boost and,
>frankly, it's
>> been dying over the past few years.
>
>Far more eloquently put than I've ever achieved in three years of 
>trying to deliver this message.

We're obviously talking past one another and I don't know how to resolve this.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)