On 20.05.2016 11:55, Peter Dimov wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
So my counter-proposal (which I have repeatedly voiced over past years) would be to let Boost evolve into an *umbrella organization* with a relatively high degree of autonomy for *member projects* to decide for their own on things like what infrastructure tools to use (to build, test, document, to track issues and feature requests, etc.), so long as certain quality standards are maintained.
And what will this umbrella organization actually *do*?
* provide general guidelines (just as now, but relaxed) * provide infrastructure * provide administrative, financial, and perhaps legal support * do reviews to accept new member projects Please note that there is one important condition that such independence would build upon: A discipline of ABI- and API-compatibility between releases, that allows downstream project B to depend on upstream project A while keeping its own release cycle. Note that, while likely being the most difficult aspect of this proposal, it's something that we have been discussing for a long time, and which would be good engineering practice anyhow, and would benefit every single user, and thus is worth striving for. That little detail aside (yes, I'm kidding), I'm not proposing any *radical* changes, and certainly not any additional tasks. Just an evolutionary way forward that I think would benefit everyone, in particular member projects (which would be allowed to evolve and flourish, undisturbed from any pointless discussions), and end-users, who would benefit from both more stability as well as more energy put into the components they want, without being bothered by the components they do not care about. Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...