Hallo, I hope to be wrong, but I'm under the impression that, while everybody recognizes that issuing the libraries that have been detained by 1.34's delay is urgent, actual activity is stuck on a couple of strategic decisions. These are the structure of the Subversion repository and the new development process. Actually, I believe these are symptoms of a single meta-problem: how are strategic decisions taken within Boost? I can offer a few proposals: 1) S/he who does the job decides: unfair maybe but, hey, if you're interested, contribute! 2) The moderators decide: undemocratic, but then these are among the people that contributed the most and most continuously over the years; they gained the authority to make decisions on the field. 3) A poll is taken on the mailing list. 4) A non binding poll is taken on the mailing list, then the moderators decide. 5) The review process is used. In order to avoid the obvious bootstrap problem, I suggest that Doug Gregor and Beman Dawes get to choose how to reach a decision for the repository and the process, respectively. Cheers, Nicola Musatti