On 3/24/2010 4:17 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On 24 March 2010 19:37, Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
If none of the Boost leaders pay any attention to this situation then the feeling by end-users that a library is not really being supported will continue and people will stop using that library.
Boost leaders?
There is no need to pretend that there are not Boost developers whom others think of as the leaders of Boost. While no one may officially be considered a "leader" surely there are those who are looked up to as such.
If Boost had some sort of policy by which authors/maintainers of a library, who are no longer paying any attention to it in response to Boost users, get relieved of the responsibility of supporting the library and someone else is chosen to maintain it instead, it would be good for the end-users and for Boost developers as well.
IMO it'd be better if a group of people took over, for a higher bus factor. I would put the library into maintenance i.e. no major changes. Any new features could be developed separately and then proposed on the list (not necessarily a formal review). I'm not sure if it should be formalised though, circumstances might different for different components.
A group of people could be fine also. I just feel that when current maintainers of libraries are no longer responding to requests and queries regarding that library that someone has to take the responsibility of seeing if another person, or group of people, can maintain the library better. I am not trying to downplay the enormous work and expertise needed to develop a library accepted into Boost in any way. I am just trying to be realistic in that a programmer may have other interests in his life which preclude the time necessary to pay attention to his Boost library(s). At the same time there are many Boost libraries which hardly need any more done with them so any large additions to the library may better be served by a new library by someone else. This has already been done ( such as with signals and signals2 ) and I see nothing wrong with this model.
Of course this would mean that whatever "rights" once a library is submitted to Boost ( I am not a legal expert ) which the author of a Boost library retains can be removed if the author does not support the library any longer, and that this is part of Boost policy.
The boost license is pretty clear. There's no need to remove any rights, ownership isn't as formal as you think. It's mostly based on respect and convention.
The license is one thing and even the "Library Maintainer's Rights and Responsibilities" which Steve Watanabe links to in another post is another, but unless someone with authority decides that library X, being ignored by the maintainer, needs to be taken over by another who is amenable to fixes and changes, it is not going to happen. The main reason is somewhat psychological. If an end-user complains that maintainer X is not responding to requests about library X it will be seen as a derogatory put down of maintainer X. If a boost developer complains it may also be seen as a form of competitive envy. Despite your objection to Boost "leaders" someone has to take the bit between the teeth in order to effect change.