Re: Build Boost Back Better

From: William Linkmeyer (wlink10_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-13 18:15:17

Hello,

I’d like to resurface this thread. There’s a lot of potential here. 

Alan’s synthesis is clear and actionable. 

It seems to me that the least controversial improvement we can make is this:

> - Pivot in the direction of more user-facing utilities
> 
>    - +1 Graphics clients, window managers, audio I/O
> 
>    - +1 Boost is great for supplying nuts and bolts, but it's light on
> turnkey application frameworks

WL

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 2:40 PM, Alan de Freitas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> I've attempted to synthesize this discussion so we might find holes in our
> divergencies or come up with something more actionable.
> 
> 
> 
>   - This list does not represent my opinions. I marked things mentioned as
>   pros and cons with +1/-1. This is also how I interpreted the comments and
>   not my opinion.
>   - As with any synthesis, there is going to be some error. I'm sorry if I
>   misrepresented some opinions by mistake.
>   - Solutions are not exclusive and not exhaustive.
> 
> 
> ## Communication
> 
> 
> Problems mentioned:
> 
> - Declining activity in the mailing list
> 
> - Balkanization of Boost
> 
> 
> Proposed solutions:
> 
> - Mailing list
> 
>    - +1 The medium is not necessarily the problem
> 
>    - -1 Declining activity already
> 
>    - -1 Discussions about libraries are already on Github
> 
>    - -1 Instant discussions are already on Slack
> 
>    - -1 _Some_ non-per-library discussions are already on Reddit
> 
>    - -1 Feels link 20-years ago tech
> 
>    - +1 Discussion comes to the subscribers
> 
>    - +1 Simplifies local archives and one can use tools of choice
> 
>    - -1 Inability to have nicely formatted code
> 
>    - -1 Inability to have embedded godbolt preview
> 
>    - +1 It doesn’t interrupt you when “new stuff is available”
> 
> - Forum based solution
> 
>    - +1 Friendlier from the user perspective
> 
>    - +1 Allows one to subscribe to topics of interest
> 
>    - +1 Discussion also comes to the subscribers
> 
>    - -1 Some find forums inferior to mailing lists
> 
>    - -1 Not everything can be solved by new and shiny tools
> 
>    - -1 People have already moved discussions to Github
> 
>    - +1 Newcomers prefer the web
> 
>    - -1 People need to subscribe to topics
> 
>    - -1 Integration with email involves lots of important details
> 
>    - -1 Centralized services might limit access based on the user's region
> 
>    - -1 Forums might require javascript to load content
> 
> - Some form of social media management
> 
> 
> Related points
> 
> - Getting reviews pumping should incentivize communication
> 
> 
> ## Promotion
> 
> 
> Problems mentioned:
> 
> - Necessity to highlight once again the important role that Boost serves in
> the C++ community
> 
> - Newcomers can't figure out where to ask for help and report problems.
> 
> - Newcomers find it easier to find support on Reddit, Gitter, Github, or
> slack, than on the mailing list.
> 
> 
> Proposed solutions:
> 
> - Website
> 
>    - +1 Make boost.org more modern and relevant
> 
>    - -1 Not everything can be solved by new and shiny tools
> 
>    - -1 Not many people decide not to use Boost because of the website
> 
>    - +1 Could simplify involvement for newcomers
> 
> - Use boost projects for website backend
> 
>    - -1 May not be the most efficient
> 
>    - -1 Off-the-shelf software parts are widely understood
> 
> - Some type of campaign
> 
> - Identify metrics of success
> 
>    - Number of installs
> 
>    - Number of programs using Boost
> 
>    - Participation
> 
> - Quantify where the participants have gone
> 
>    - People go to std:: mailing lists with their ideas and bypass boost
> 
>    - People go to Github, have their ideas available, bypass the review,
> and avoid changing things.
> 
> 
> ## Contributions and Proposals
> 
> 
> Problems mentioned:
> 
> - No high-impact library creation and adoption
> 
> - High barrier to getting involved
> 
>    - Libraries are either too well-written (beast) to contribute
> 
>    - Libraries are too domain-specific (math libraries) to contribute
> 
> - There is no clear flow to do small improvements
> 
>    - Contributors don't know what libs are dead and which are not
> 
>    - Contributors don't know what are good issues for casual participants
> 
>    - Unmaintained libraries and PRs that get ignored
> 
> - Contributors' lack of time
> 
> - You are not going to attract new people by making them use ancient
> standards
> 
> - Not enough women
> 
> 
> Proposed solutions:
> 
> - Pivot in the direction of more user-facing utilities
> 
>    - +1 Graphics clients, window managers, audio I/O
> 
>    - +1 Boost is great for supplying nuts and bolts, but it's light on
> turnkey application frameworks
> 
> - Pivot in the direction of more embedded utilities
> 
>    - GPIO, SPI, and I2C
> 
> - Drawing in young engineers with fresh ideas and free time
> 
> - Somebody making that happen
> 
> - Create a list of open questions
> 
> - Spend time at conferences cajoling people to act as review managers
> 
>    - +1 Good opportunity to find people
> 
>    - -1 Boost should not be "two-tier" i.e. those with travel budgets and
> those without
> 
> - Involve more women: Cold-call a colleague or a mailing list participant
> 
>    - -1 Gender has no bearing in the Boost community
> 
>    - -1 Information about a C++ contributor other than their code is
> irrelevant
> 
>    - +1 Ignoring this as an issue is being "fine" with the "status quo"
> 
>    - -1 It segregates people by qualities irrelevant to the community
> 
>    - -1 It introduces a social divide
> 
>    - -1 It takes away from the community's efficiency
> 
>    - -1 The problems mentioned might not apply to online discussions
> 
>    - -1 It abandons merit as the most important value
> 
>    - -1 There's no reason to follow other organization's value system
> 
>    - +1 There could be efforts to make any open-source community more
> welcoming
> 
> 
> ## Review
> 
> 
> Problems mentioned:
> 
> - Declining level of participation as reviewers
> 
> - Difficulty to find a review manager
> 
> - Newcomers don't understand the review process, although others do
> 
> - Newcomers don't understand the process to become a maintainer
> 
> 
> Proposed solutions:
> 
> - Somebody making that happen
> 
> 
> Related problems:
> 
> - Requires new attractive proposals
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 10:36, Adam Wulkiewicz via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
>> W dniu 07.04.2022 o 15:32, Mateusz Loskot via Boost pisze:
>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 15:29, William Linkmeyer via Boost
>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Although, I think (or hope) that we can all agree that there could be
>> efforts to
>>>> make most any open-source community be more welcoming.
>>> Yes, let's identify and eliminate technical barriers and chores
>>> that work against growing participation by users and contributors.
>> +1
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alan Freitas
> https://github.com/alandefreitas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost