Niall Douglas wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 20:59, Peter Dimov wrote:
David Sankel wrote:
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".
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. What is this hypothetical "Boost community" that is supposedly being served? What are those over-represented groups? Are you referencing something with which I am not familiar?
This reply surprises me. A *lot* of people have been expressing this sentiment during the past four years, myself and Stephan Kelly pop to mind in particular. A thread not too long ago entitled "Boost is dead" or something like that was a *very* long running thread.
I notice that among all that sentiment expression you forgot to answer my questions.