On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 6:11 PM Robert Ramey via Boost
Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a process similar to the formal process for new libraries?
What I decided early on is that we were just going to build the new website the way we thought would be really cool and exciting, and that when we had something that was actually at a point that could be a reasonable replacement for the old website we would unveil it to the community. There was the understanding that people might hate it and the work would have been for nothing. To the contrary, I am surprised and happy to see that most of it is well received.
This would help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc.
Consensus is admirable but trying to get a thousand developers from different countries to all agree on what is aesthetically pleasing, what is elegant in terms of user interface, and what is functional with respect to a website is an exercise in frustration leading to failure. I believe that the success of this new website is in no small part because it was driven by one person with his own artistic vision, who could see the project through from start to finish and preserve its creative integrity.
I just don't see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for.
We account for all considerations by establishing a working process, where website issues can be opened via GitHub, prioritized and scheduled, assigned to full-time staff, and then tracked by stakeholders who can shepherd the issue to resolution by working with staff. You can see an example of that process at work here: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/938 This of course will take time so I invite the community to roll up their sleeves and join us in making this a website that we can all be proud of which reflects the high quality of the Boost brand. Thanks