Re: Build Boost Back Better

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-06 17:24:33

On 06/04/2022 17:48, Thomas Rodgers via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:41 PM Marshall Clow via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 4, 2022, at 10:43 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost
 <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This came up before but it is worth mentioning again; in addition to a
>>> website update to make boost.org <http://boost.org/> modern and
>> relevant, how do we feel
>>> about a transition to forum-based discussion instead of the mailing
>>> list?
>>
>> Strongly opposed.
>>
>>
> Also strongly opposed. I am now the maintainer of Boost for
> Fedora/CentOS/RHEL (Jonathan is transition out of the role). If Boost
> discussion moves to some forum that I have to chase down vs. just arriving
> alongside the rest of my upstreams (e.g. libstdc++) it's likely to get
> missed, so the quality of Fedora's distribution of Boost will likely
 suffer.

As kind of proof of the problem, a lot of the discussion around this 
topic has been occurring on Slack on #boost, rather than here.

To sum up the discussion there, the more instant discussion happens on 
Slack, increasingly less immediate discussion is also happening on 
github discussions, and of course github issues.

In other words, discussion around Boost increasingly:

- Is centred per boostorg repo on github (library specific).

- Occurs on Slack (instant) or on github boostorg repo (less instant).

- Non-per-library discussion tends to happen increasingly on Reddit /r/cpp.

Which is to say, discussion is not happening here on this mailing list, 
or on other mailing lists.

So TBH Thomas the ship is sailing here already. The question is whether 
to actually do anything about it, or leave trends continue uninterrupted 
i.e. we're clearly already moving onto Github, Reddit, and Slack.

Niall