Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 12:05:20

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Vladimir Prus via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 18/07/2017 16:12, Jon Kalb via Boost wrote:
>> Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our
> > desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and
> > developers alike.
> I am obviously biased, so I won't comment on technical merits of this
> desire. Also, as usual in open-source, those who write the most code
> get to decide in the end.
> However, I can't call this decision process anything but broken.

> Since its founding, Boost was run by open discussions on a mailing list.

Yes, and this is as true today as it was before. Before the steering
committee even looked at the CMake issue, there was a large mailing list
discussion on moving to CMake. That discussion was started with the express
intent to bring a proposal to the steering committee. None of this should
be a surprise.

Boost needs a steering committee to break stalemates and that is why it was
created and exists today. The CMake issue has been around for years and
hasn't been able to progress primarily because "obviously biased" vocal
minorities were holding it back with threats. Rarely has there been an
anti-CMake argument that suggested CMake would hurt Boost's mission. Enough
is enough. "Finally" is the word I keep seeing over and over on the reddit

There were people whose opinion carried a lot of weight, but that was
> because they wrote a lot of high-quality code and expressed themselves
> clearly and openly. Today, we have Boost Steering Committee, whose
> members are elected not by developers or users of Boost through an open
> process, but through a closed process at a conference somewhere.

> There is no doubt that all SC members mean only good for Boost and C++
> community, I know many of them as excellent developers who contributed a
> lot to Boost. However, other members of SC are not involved much, and some,
> including committee chair, do not seem to even have commit access to Boost.
> Again, I'm sure everybody meant only best, but something went wrong.
> Specifically, a committee that is not elected by Boost community and has
> members who never contributed any code met somewhere and made a vague
> decision that was poorly communicated and immediately cost the project a
> person who actually did a ton of work. I'm sure that a group elected by and
> from active developers would have done better at all fronts.

The steering committee was created to protect the mission of Boost. It is
comprised of Boost developers, users, and leaders in the C++ community.
Everyone on that committee is looking out for the best interests of Boost
and is well qualified to do so. The decision to move to CMake was made

> I think that for future of Boost, it would be better if the Steering
> Committee immediately resign, and have an open election process for
> its replacement. Personally, I'll be happy to vote for many current
> members, but I feel that a governance based on open process will be
> better in the long run.

The steering committee is set up like many others in the Open Source world.
People are chosen for various reasons but primary among them is their
commitment to Boost's mission and doing what is right for Boost. This is
how the founders set it up and how Boost ever switched to git.

I'm sorry you and a couple others aren't happy with the decision made, but
any decision in a deadlock situation is bound to disappoint someone.

-- David Sankel

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at