Subject: Re: [boost] Debate until Decision
From: Hans Dembinski (hans.dembinski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-04-03 08:56:35
This is an interesting discussion.
> On 29. Mar 2018, at 16:32, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> How is a decision made? Typically in a meeting where people vote
>> face-to-face. For a group like this, voting would be done online with a
>> time limit.
> I generally think that a formal process such as a vote should be the
> last resort, if all other attempts to build consensus fail.
"Consensus" sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? I think decisions that affect boost as a whole cannot be made in a way that makes everyone happy. As James said, if you have a heterogenous group with varying backgrounds, it is natural that not everyone will fall on the same side even after extensive discussion. Still decisions have to be made.
Letting the maintainers vote on global boost issues after a proper discussion sounds like a good idea. In the end, that's how the review process for new libraries works. It is a sensible process, so why can't it be used to make all kinds of decision?
There are not many systems for making group decisions that actually work in practice. You basically have the choice between democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. Letting the maintainers vote is a democratic meritocracy, I think many of us are fine with this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk