On 5 Dec 2013 at 10:06, Steven Watanabe wrote:
My proposal goes further than Beman's and gives "Community maintainership" to all but the most well-maintained libraries. Each library would still have a named maintainer and this would be their role:
<snip>
This wouldn't help anything. Every effort to create a group that does general maintenance in the past has fizzled out when most of the participants lose interest. If we can't even manage this for a few libraries that have no active maintainer at all, it's completely hopeless to try to establish it for even more libraries.
Agreed. Boost isn't like other open source libraries because it sprawls so much, so I can't think of anyone who uses every single library in Boost and therefore has a substantial interest in looking at Boost as a whole rather than as a pick-and-mix. I've always personally thought the only way you'll get holistic work done on an ongoing basis is to appoint a paid civil service corp of engineers i.e. effectively a paid engineer or two who are appointed benevolent dictators. As no one appears to be forthcoming with the requisite funding, that is a pipedream. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/