I would like to measure the interest in a fork of Asio, proposed as a Boost library for review. Currently, Boost.Asio (and the standalone version Asio) is developed and maintained by Christopher Kohlhoff. Unfortunately he has a well-earned reputation for being unresponsive to emails and GitHub issues. For example: https://github.com/chriskohlhoff/asio/pull/904 I believe that Asio is Boost's most valuable asset, because "the C++ Standard cannot connect to the Internet." Every other language has portable networking built-in except for C++. Asio is the industry standard and the gold standard for portable networking, yet it is falling behind due to its lack of evolution. A major component of my revitalization plan for Boost is to promote Asio and build many great things on top of it. For example, clients and servers which speak MCP ("Model Context Protocol"), empowering users to easily connect and talk to AI endpoints (Large Language Models) using REST and JSON. Learn more about MCP here: https://www.pulsemcp.com/ In discussions with our staff engineers, there is a movement to propose a Boost.Crypt library with cryptographic primitives as an alternative to OpenSSL, with the goal of modern interfaces which eliminate broad categories of undefined behavior and usage errors which lead to vulnerabilities. Yet if Asio cannot adopt support for alternatives to OpenSSL we cannot evolve. The fork of Asio is just in the idea stage, no work has been done yet, and it is all open to debate and design. My thinking of how the fork would work goes like this: 1. C++ Alliance allocates dedicated staff to maintain the fork 2. Stakeholders come together, on the mailing list and through GItHub issues, to determine what directions we might like to explore or move towards 3. Dedicated staff implement the work and provide support for stakeholders 4. Changes in Asio would be adopted on an as-needed basis The first order of business would be to go through all of the GitHub issues in Asio and address them one by one. What do you think?