wt., 10 wrz 2024 o 17:03 Glen Fernandes
I must say that I am surprised that there was no reply to this question from the individual directors of the Boost Foundation Board. I can see that four members of the Board are actively participating in the Beman project. I would have expected that they gave their input on the concerns I expressed.
In the context of the Boost Asset Stewardship Review, the Boost Foundation also has a request from the Boost Developers Community, so I would think it is in the best interest of the Foundation members to participate in this review, hear the expressed questions and concerns and reply to them.
Let me ask again, mostly the people that promote the Beman project, why do you think Boost is unfit for the purpose of incubating libraries that target
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 2:49 AM Andrzej Krzemienski wrote: the
Standard Library?
Hi Andrzej,
If not sooner, I should have an answer that represents the Beman project leadership's thoughts on this, latest tomorrow at 3pm EST after the Boost Foundation monthly meeting.
I also want to confirm that your inquiry is not independent of the Asset Stewardship review. i.e. It matters if the Boost Foundation chooses to support another initiative (or the Beman project specifically).
Glen, thank you for assisting with this. Maybe I should offer some clarification. Previously, I was asking about the position of the body (Boost Foundation Board). This time I am asking for input from individual people, who have their accounts in the Beman Project's discourse, and at the same time happen to be directors on the Boost Foundation Board. I believe that they are also subscribed to the Boost Mailing List, and they read the messages, specifically during this review period. My question is in the context of Boost Asset Stewardship Review. For me, the question to answer in the review is not only which option results in better material conditions, but also whom I trust to help Boost shine. (Please pardon my pathos. I am not a native English speaker, and sometimes I do not know how to better express myself.) I feel that my trust has been strained in the context of the Beman Project. I do not mind the Boost Foundation supporting multiple initiatives. My concern is specifically about the Beman Project, for the following reasons. I have always thought that Boost was conceived to help create high-quality libraries, with the purpose in mind that they would be good candidates for standardization. The quality would have been achieved through the thorough Boost Review process, and then through collecting user (commercial and private) experience. Boost evidently fulfilled this role. Boost libraries are still proposed for standardization: Boost.Static_vector and Boost.ASIO. I would expect that the Boost Foundation Board members present at WG21 (the ISO/IEC C++ Standards Committee) meetings would encourage the proposal authors to take the Boost path. Do they? Of course, the proposal authors may not want to do it for valid reasons. In that case, I would expect Boost Foundation Board members present at WG21 meetings to collect these reasons and report them to the Boost community, e.g., via the Boost Developers mailing list. Is this happening? I tried to do some digging on the motivation behind the Beman Project, as the information in the official page is scarce. I found this information https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/presentations/beman_overvie... It shows as a motivating example that owing to the Beman Project you can see the ranged-based interface for `optional`: https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/presentations/beman_overvie... I would expect that the Boost Foundation Board members involved in this, and aware that Boost has its `optional`, have suggested or proposed that Boost.Optional adds this interface also. I hear from my colleagues in WG21 that it is Boost leaders that proposed the Beman project because they do not think Boost works well. This is more like a rumor, so one can hardly build their position based on this, but it adds to the impression that there is a subset of the Boost Foundation Board members who do not believe Boost is capable of fulfilling the mission of incubating the libraries intended for standardization. They may be right. But in that case, I think the Boost community deserves to hear the reasons. My impression might be wrong and unfair, therefore I would like the people to respond to this, and possibly clear things up. I know this is long and unstructured, so thank you for reading till the end. I hope I managed to get across why the question about the Beman Project is relevant in the context of the Boost Asset Stewardship Review. Regards, &rzej;
Thanks, Glen