Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-10 06:49:26

czw., 5 wrz 2024 o 23:43 Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

>
>
> czw., 5 wrz 2024 o 23:22 Kristen Shaker <kristen_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi Andrzej,
>>
>> Boost has always and still is a breeding ground for high-quality, peer
>> reviewed C++ libraries. Some of these libraries made it to the standard and
>> some of them were never intended or appropriate for the standard.
>> Boost.Python, which is a C++/Python interop library, is a good example.
>>
>> We wanted to create a dedicated space for users to test and give feedback
>> on all libraries proposed for standardization - not just those coming from
>> Boost. Without Beman, the C++ community has no way to play around with most
>> of what is being proposed.
>>
>> Both of these projects are valuable. They are both part of The Boost
>> Foundations mission to "develop high quality, expert reviewed, legally
>> unencumbered, open-source libraries" and "inspire standard enhancements"
>>  Both can live under the same organizational umbrella. The Boost Foundation
>> is committed to the success of both projects.
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>> Kristen
>>
>
> Kristen, thank you for this statement.
>
> I would like to dig further on this part:
>
> We wanted to create a dedicated space for users to test and give feedback
>> on all libraries proposed for standardization - not just those coming from
>> Boost. Without Beman, the C++ community has no way to play around with most
>> of what is being proposed.
>>
>
> Six months earlier I would think that authors of the proposals targeting
> LEWG would be encouraged to propose their library into Boost. There, to
> undergo the scrutiny of the Boost Review process, and then to have a
> released library that users can use and report their feedback on. Why
> encourage people to join a new project rather than use Boost that I would
> think was designed for this purpose?
>
> I know that this question departs from the topic of Asset Stewardship, but
> it is about the future of Boost, and therefore related. If people,
> especially (but not only) those on the Boost Foundation Board, think Boost
> is unfit for this purpose, I would like to know why. Maybe this can be
> fixed.
>

I must say that I am surprised that there was no reply to this question
from the individual directors of the Boost Foundation Board. I can see that
four members of the Board are actively participating in the Beman project.
I would have expected that they gave their input on the concerns I
expressed.

In the context of the Boost Asset Stewardship Review, the Boost Foundation
also has a request from the Boost Developers Community, so I would think it
is in the best interest of the Foundation members to participate in this
review, hear the expressed questions and concerns and reply to them.

Let me ask again, mostly the people that promote the Beman project, why do
you think Boost is unfit for the purpose of incubating libraries that
target the Standard Library?

Regards,
&rzej;

> Regards,
> &rzej;
>
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 12:48 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 10:00 AM Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
>>> > wt., 3 wrz 2024 o 12:34 Glen Fernandes napisał(a):
>>> >> Just to be clear, you want to know what role each of the individual
>>> >> directors on the Boost Foundation board have in the Beman Project? Or
>>> >> the role that the Boost Foundation plans to play in the Beman Project?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Oh, I mean the latter. The Boost Foundation as a body.
>>>
>>> Andrzej, understood. A response from the chair of the Boost Foundation
>>> is forthcoming.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>>
>>