Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
That's why I am suggesting that Boost create some sort of policy so that maintenance of an actively used Boost library be transferred to others whenever the original library author(s) no longer wish to maintain the library.
Why do we need an official policy if someone has to volunteer anyway? It's not like there's an army of volunteers and we have to be careful to pick the right candidate. :)
Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
Emil, I think where we need to consider an official policy is on the other end. In the current structure of Boost, the author of the library has control of it unless they explicitly cede that control. So, if a developer disappears, no one feels they have the right to mess with the library. We need to change the expectations on that count. So, developers submitting libraries to Boost do so with the understanding that a substantial period of inactivity while there are issues that need to be addressed means that someone else is allowed (and expected) to step in and become the prime maintainer. Inaction cedes control by default. In my opinion, this is an important issue for Boost and I place it is more important than many of Tom's original points. John