Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: [Boost-users] [boost 2.0] was ...
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-20 12:09:21

Niall Douglas wrote
> Since the economic crash around 2008-2009, commercially sponsored
> work on Boost has enormously dried up which forced some of the big
> names to leave for greener pastures (e.g. Boost Consulting wound up),
> plus we got hit with a double whammy of the C++ 11 STL providing much
> of Boost, thus eliminating the commercial need to sponsor Boost
> specifically fixes in Boost.

My view is simpler. I believe that boost has been successful in it's
mission and needs to find a new / related one. I have my own agenda
for this "new" mission and I work hard to promote it.

> Myself and Robert do agree though that users don't pay their fair
> share.

LOL, I have no expectation that life is going to start being "fair".

> They get high quality libraries, but don't pay a commensurate
> amount for that. Equally, many of them would *like* to pay for it, in
> particular they would *love* to pay for timely bug fixes.

But I am interested in finding a way to fund quality library development.
And I to my my mind this line of thinking points in the right direction.
I have some ideas - but they aren't well developed and I'm happy
that others are thinking about it and making suggestions.

> The Steering Committee has not smiled on those arguments though. And
> without community consensus, it's tough to create movement.

I don't think that a consensus is possible, but neither do I think it's
a requirement. I don't think boost needs to have anything to do
with funding library development/maintainence. In fact, for a number
of reasons I think it's better if doesn't. This is still a wide open

> I might add that Robert has his incubator
> where I think he has a bug bounty
> system configured? I personally think the bug bounty system needs a
> monthly emailed scoreboard, with escrow for the bounties. Again
> though, that would need community consensus to make happen.

I don't have such a "bounty" system configured. I'm not convinced that
its the way to go. If you look at you can find
the information regarding "library sponsorship". It isn't featured
prominently as I have my hands full with other stuff and I'm not in
a position to promote it. I'm also reluctant to dilute my current focus of
getting the incubator "sold" as "the" way to get a library developed
and reviewed. But I am interested in it.

> There is a strong antipathy against making Boost into a viable business.
> Stemming from its origins, it's supposed to be about the pet "hero"
> library project, not making a living.

This is why I think that funding of library development has to occur
outside of boost. Boost can maintain it's role of gatekeeper of software
quality while permitting funding of libraries independent of boost.
Certainly, some libraries have been funded this way - Gil .

> Robert is speaking at C++ Now about the future of Boost, and I'll be
> there too.

Thanks for plugging my talk. It's 8:30 in the evening of the first day.
I certainly hope that I get more than the 35 attendees I got the last

I've looked over the conference schedule. There are a number of
of varying lengths which touch related topics. It is my plan to preview
the substance of my presentation with those other presenters in advance.
This will give them the opportunity to contrast their ideas with my
if they so desire.

This could be the most exciting Boost Conference yet !!!

Robert Ramey

View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Users mailing list archive at

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at