besides: competition often leads to better products, imo clang is the best thing that happened to gcc ... i had my troubles with boost.test myself, so also from the perspective of the user it would be very helpful to have two libraries with a similar interface, which could be exchanged by using a different namespace or macro prefix.
that said, i have no idea, why you strongly dislike richard's offer
Presumable it is because Richard's offer -- which I trust was genuine offer of engineering help -- actually sounded like an offer to take over something that Gennadiy has spent years creating, over close to 900 commits. The resulting response was rather on the polite side, even.
there are quite a few boost libraries that are not actively maintained. recently there was a discussion about a community maintenance team for these libraries. some libraries have even been orphaned before they had been merged into the release branch.
I don't know whether damage done in this thread, and in other exchanges about boost.test, can be undone :-(
sad, but true. though having more than one maintainer for a library would be the best approach for a stable codebase ... tim