On 5/8/24 4:19 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
I confess that I'm totally mystified by this. I've looked over the web page and it doesn't help me.
Motivated by some of the comments and observations, I spent a little more time delving into the information available on the beman project. The most intriguing/revealing page I found here: https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/docs/governance.md Seems pretty clear that the goal is to provide library implementation for the C++ standard library. Very similar to the founding of Boost. But the structure is quite a bit different. Beman Project Leads. It (currently)has three "project leads". "The Beman Project Leads are responsible for maintaining the Library Acceptance and Incubating process. This includes strategic planning, setting goals, and ensuring the organization's objectives are met." Although the goal of contributing to the standard seems similar to the original goal of Boost, the means proposed to accomplishing it seem 180 degrees different. There is no defined review process, reviewers, review manager, review wizard as these functions are the responsibility of "project leads". The group of project leads is increased/decreased by solely by consensus among the project leads. Currently, the designated project leads are: Jeff Garland, David Sankel and Inbal Levi. Beman Project Contributors. The Beman Project Contributors are individuals who help execute the facilities provided by the Beman Project. That's all it says. I have no idea what this might mean. Beman Project Library Authors. The Beman Project Library Authors are the Library authors who are maintaining and improving the libraries that are part of the Beman Project. I think I know what this means. So there it is. Original Boost Goal of creating implementation of ideas proposed for standardization, but only such libraries. Managed top-down rather than bottom-up as boost.org is. It's stated that this is not intended to replace boost.org. I believe this as since C++11, role of boost.org in this role is much diminished if not eliminated. For this same reason I believe that this idea will be a flop. That's even without considering the issues raised by modules. Again, Boost should distance itself from the standardization process which has arrived at a cul-de-sac where imagination, inspiration and sometimes genius is replaced by negotiation, consensus building, politics and petty parochial interests. They can do their thing, we'll do ours - which is develop innovative imaginative C++ software. One thing I do like about this project is that has tried to address our issues related to tools and looks like they've provided an interesting alternative starting point. Our tools have become too complex to use and maintain. To be fair, a lot of this problem is due to the complexity of C++ itself. I know we've been working to try to fix this, but let's face it, it's not working. Robert Ramey