On May 21, 2016 9:26:05 AM EDT, Niall Douglas
On 21 May 2016 at 6:17, Rob Stewart wrote:
The whole point of a proactive leadership is that they DON'T follow the masses. Most will be indifferent. Making Boost great again requires decisions not backed by a positive mass vote.
Robert has remarked numerous times that such leadership, in Boost, is expected to come from the community, not from a centralized authority. I know that frustrates you, but that is the authority structure of Boost. It is possible to develop community backing for a different structure, but that doesn't mean the Steering Committee should arrogate that role by fiat.
That's by YOUR choice as the Steering Committee: you have the power, but you choose to not use it. You have *explicitly* chosen this policy which is to proactively discourage new blood and new ideas, thus enforcing the status quo. It is equal in every way to actively choosing continuing decline for Boost and the active rejection of a new generation of modern quality C++ libraries for the entire C++ community.
It is in short, an anti-social, anti-younger person, anti-innovation, anti-modern, anti-real-change attitude. I know you don't understand what I'm talking about, after all we've done this topic to death on boost-steering last year, so I'll wrap up by requoting David Sankel:
Boost cannot evolve the way it has in the past. When it was getting started, we didn't have over-representation of groups who benefit from the status-quo. We didn't have the idea of servicing the "Boost community" instead of the "C++ community". Either the steering committee will step up to protect the original vision of Boost, or the vision of Boost will change to serve the insiders. This means life or death for boost and, frankly, it's been dying over the past few years.
Far more eloquently put than I've ever achieved in three years of trying to deliver this message.
We're obviously talking past one another and I don't know how to resolve this. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)