----- Original Message ----
From: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> To: boost@lists.boost.org Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 1:08:03 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [OT] Open Source Forking and Boost (was Re: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)
On 16/12/10 12:04, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mateusz Loskot<mateusz@loskot.net> wrote:
On 16/12/10 11:04, Bruce Adams wrote:
I really shouldn't get involved in this but... You need to move away from the idea of code ownership, especially in the context of a community project.
In spite of the fact you followed up my post, I assume you don't address the "You need to" directly to me but to the Community in general.
Either he meant "You" as in the Community, or "You" as in "Dean Michael Berris" (or in this case, me :D ).
Based on the chronology and posts sequence, I still claim some rights to the title of "You" ,-)
I knew I should have stayed out of this :) I meant "you" as in the "community" and I meant "should consider" rather than "need". Its not an order or a criticism just an observation that it seems to work better than way in my experience.
In a way it is a nonsense to require permission of the maintainer.
[...]
All you've written sounds somewhat obvious to me, indeed.
Good. That means I'm not talking complete garbage. Still you probably wouldn't be amazed at how what is blindingly obvious to one person is clear as mud to another.
Yeah, but what is the current process reflecting? [...]
That's what I've asked about.
Currently, the maintainer's responsibilities [1] are concluded with
"If at some point you no longer wish to serve as maintainer of your library, it is your responsibility to make this known to the boost community and to find another individual to take your place."
[1] http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html
Perhaps they should be updated with what Bruce has expalined and Dave agreed with.
I'm an outsider with no say in the matter and no experience with submitting patches to boost. I would have thought that if someone has been trusted enough to have access to SVN to include their own contributions they can be trusted to access the rest of the source tree. Anyone who abused that priviledge would see it rapidly withdrawn. One point of source control is that you can roll back if things go awry. Regards, Bruce.