Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-10 18:50:01

wt., 10 wrz 2024 o 17:03 Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 2:49 AM Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Hi Andrzej,
>
> If not sooner, I should have an answer that represents the Beman
> project leadership's thoughts on this,  latest tomorrow at 3pm EST
> after the Boost Foundation monthly meeting.
>
> I also want to confirm that your inquiry is not independent of the
> Asset Stewardship review. i.e. It matters if the Boost Foundation
> chooses to support another initiative (or the Beman project
> specifically).
>

Glen, thank you for assisting with this.
Maybe I should offer some clarification. Previously, I was asking about the
position of the body (Boost Foundation Board). This time I am asking for
input from individual people, who have their accounts in the Beman
Project's discourse, and at the same time happen to be directors on the
Boost Foundation Board. I believe that they are also subscribed to the
Boost Mailing List, and they read the messages, specifically during this
review period.

My question is in the context of Boost Asset Stewardship Review. For me,
the question to answer in the review is not only which option results in
better material conditions, but also whom I trust to help Boost shine.
(Please pardon my pathos. I am not a native English speaker, and sometimes
I do not know how to better express myself.) I feel that my trust has been
strained in the context of the Beman Project.

I do not mind the Boost Foundation supporting multiple initiatives. My
concern is specifically about the Beman Project, for the following reasons.

I have always thought that Boost was conceived to help create high-quality
libraries, with the purpose in mind that they would be good candidates for
standardization. The quality would have been achieved through the thorough
Boost Review process, and then through collecting user (commercial and
private) experience. Boost evidently fulfilled this role. Boost libraries
are still proposed for standardization: Boost.Static_vector and
Boost.ASIO.

I would expect that the Boost Foundation Board members present at WG21 (the
ISO/IEC C++ Standards Committee) meetings would encourage the proposal
authors to take the Boost path. Do they?
Of course, the proposal authors may not want to do it for valid reasons. In
that case, I would expect Boost Foundation Board members present at WG21
meetings to collect these reasons and report them to the Boost community,
e.g., via the Boost Developers mailing list. Is this happening?

I tried to do some digging on the motivation behind the Beman Project, as
the information in the official page is scarce. I found this information
https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/presentations/beman_overview_wg21_202406.org

It shows as a motivating example that owing to the Beman Project you can
see the ranged-based interface for `optional`:
https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/presentations/beman_overview_wg21_202406.org#what-we-want-ii

I would expect that the Boost Foundation Board members involved in this,
and aware that Boost has its `optional`, have suggested or proposed that
Boost.Optional adds this interface also.

I hear from my colleagues in WG21 that it is Boost leaders that proposed
the Beman project because they do not think Boost works well. This is more
like a rumor, so one can hardly build their position based on this, but it
adds to the impression that there is a subset of the Boost Foundation Board
members who do not believe Boost is capable of fulfilling the mission of
incubating the libraries intended for standardization.

They may be right. But in that case, I think the Boost community deserves
to hear the reasons.

My impression might be wrong and unfair, therefore I would like the people
to respond to this, and possibly clear things up.

I know this is long and unstructured, so thank you for reading till the
end. I hope I managed to get across why the question about the Beman
Project is relevant in the context of the Boost Asset Stewardship Review.

Regards,
&rzej;

>
> Thanks,
> Glen
>