Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 11:59:11

On 5/21/16 6:26 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 21 May 2016 at 6:17, Rob Stewart wrote:

This sort of sums up the differences.  At the risk of repeating myself 
again (recursion) I'll add to this  (moth to the flame).
>
>>> 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.

No doesn't the reason boost is great is because expressily avoids doing 
this.

>> 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.

True - and a very wise choice indeed!

> You have *explicitly* chosen this
> policy which is to proactively discourage new blood and new ideas,
> thus enforcing the status quo.

Not at all - the steering committee has declined to intervene except 
when absolutely necessary.  It hasn't encouraged or discouraged anything.

> 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.

The only active rejection of new libraries are libaries which are not 
deemed to meet Boost's standards and policies.  And this judgement is 
not rendered by the steering committee - but by the community members 
who spend there own time investigating and reviewing submissions. The 
steering committee has no role in this process.

> 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:

ROTFL - Ahhh so the whole problem is that I'm too old to understand the 
argument!  It's even worse - I'm too old to even understand that I AM 
too old!! (it's that damn recursion again)  And it's even worse - I have 
a bad attitude towards young people!  That's the problem!

>> 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,

The steering committee has been hands off.  This is the best thing it 
can do to protect the original vision of boost.

using constitutional government as an analogy, the steering committee 
isn't the president or cabinet which runs the country, it's the supreme 
court to administers the basic rules under which the varied interests 
fight it out.  I'm aware that the steering committee was only formed in 
2008 but that role was originally performed by a secret cabal of 
insiders.  Their genius was to keep their role limited.

>> or the vision of Boost will change to serve the insiders.

The current vision of boost serves those members/participants in more or 
less in proportion to the scale, utility, and appreciation for their 
contribution. Those who make the build system get the authority to 
decide how to do it.  Those who make libraries get the authority to 
decide how it gets done.  So it's true that the "insiders" have 
disproportionate say.  I'm aware that this is grating to some but 
changing this would be the end of boost as we know it.  Boost is 
uniquely successful because of this vision. And you're right - it's not 
going to change.  It's not going to evolve in the way you envision.

>> This means life or death for boost and, frankly, it's
>> been dying over the past few years.

To be replaced with ... what exactly.  You're proposals amount to 
setting aside all that is boost and just keeping the name.  Why waste 
your time and everyone's time trying to convince us that this is a good 
idea.  Why not just fork boost and make it in your own vision.  I'm 
absolutely mystified by this.  No one would object to this.  You can use 
all the boost code.  There is only one thing you can't take with you and 
that's boost name (and bank account of course).  Everything else is at 
your disposal.  Is that not enough?  Why do you need more?
And it's ridiculously easy to do - just fork boost, Insert a 
CMakeLists.txt file in the root of each library, and announce a new 
name.  What do you need us "insiders" for. Without us old farts holding 
you back, you'll take off like a rocket and we'll just wither away into 
irrelevance (at a personal level I can already feel this happening).

> Far more eloquently put than I've ever achieved in three years of
> trying to deliver this message.

Don't be too hard on yourself.  You delivery and advocacy are fine and 
actually quite effective.  The problem is that the idea you're trying to 
promote is spectacularly bad and most people see this.

Robert Ramey

PS a personal note:

I stumbled on boost around the year 2000 while looking for a sane 
wrapper around mswindows and posix threading libraries.  It was a 
revelation to me.  I've spent a life time dealing with crappy code, 
people who think their crappy code is great, arguing with people who 
refused to test code, refuse to use const and engaging in all manner of 
hacking and really bad ideas.  And then when one points out the obvious, 
he is subjected by a whole tirade that he doesn't know what he's talking 
about, that he's stupid, that it's so obvious it doesn't require an 
argument, that everyone does it this way, that ....  all manner of 
pointless circular fact free argument.  When I came upon boost it was a 
revelation.  First, a sensible discussion policy.  Then a formal 
methodology for quality assurance including serious testing and peer 
review process.  The ideas weren't revolutionary, but it was the first 
public institution which took them seriously and it has made all the 
difference.