On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:

On 7/2/15 7:44 AM, Gottlob Frege wrote:

...

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:

...

...

Perhaps you'd wish to bring back the Sandbox (http://www.boost.org/community/sandbox.html), which has been superseded by standalone repositories since the move to Git.

...

I think we need *something* for experimental libraries. Even if it is just someone's own git repository stamped (but not endorsed) with the Boost "brand". Or a page in boost.org listing current experiments. Or... something.

...

I'd like some kind of experimental area that would help find the best possible libraries.

Why isn't the boost library incubator considered ideal here? In combination with github it already provides everything necessary - and significantly more already. And it's ridiculously easy to use.

Yes, of course; sorry. I wanted to mention blincubator in here somewhere. Maybe that is the right answer; I don't know enough to know. I think the other problem, or the real problem, that none of this solves, is getting wide adoption of experimental features. A constexpr branch is something bleeding edge users might use, and can maybe be done without much breakage - it is hopefully mostly addition. Changing something like boost::optional to have conversion to tribool instead of bool, or removing operator*() and forcing users to use get(), etc. Those are big breaks. I have no idea how to get users to actually be guinea pigs for those experiments. Should we have 3 different optionals to choose from? (Should we randomly select which optional you get in your boost distribution so as to get good A/B testing :-)

On 2 Jul 2015 at 13:47, Gottlob Frege wrote:

Changing something like boost::optional to have conversion to tribool instead of bool, or removing operator*() and forcing users to use get(), etc. Those are big breaks.

I'm getting the sense that the biggest head wreck for people here is the idea that optional and future are the same thing. As in, literally the same implementation code with the same API.

I have no idea how to get users to actually be guinea pigs for those experiments. Should we have 3 different optionals to choose from? (Should we randomly select which optional you get in your boost distribution so as to get good A/B testing :-)

I've tried to not deviate from source compatibility unless there was a good reason. Either from optional, or expected. My hope is that with a bit of template aliasing the implementations could be swapped. Regarding your comments that WG21 is a lousy place to design libraries, I agree in the strongest possible terms. Boost once was the place to playpen exciting new C++ libraries - if you read this mailing list back in 1999-2001, there was a palpable excitement here as people tried new things and showed one other what could be possible. Rather like in the Rust mailing list nowadays.

From 2008-2009 onwards things haven't been as good here, and especially since Dave left. It doesn't help when members of the steering committee conspicuously fail to perform their duties, and specifically disavow taking any leadership position except to intentionally prevent and inhibit change.

I strongly support your earlier comments Tony, and your rationale, and it's long overdue for an Boost.Experimental library distro. If Boost can't and won't do it, someone else should. (For the record, it won't be me, I'm likely going to be unemployed next week and my plate this year is too full. But I'll support anyone who does best I can). Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

On 3 Jul 2015 at 9:05, Rob Stewart wrote:

...

Boost once was the place to playpen exciting new C++ libraries - if you read this mailing list back in 1999-2001, there was a palpable excitement here as people tried new things and showed one other what could be possible. Rather like in the Rust mailing list nowadays.

From 2008-2009 onwards things haven't been as good here, and especially since Dave left.

You've made this sort of remark before. Dave didn't do anything particularly special except to be highly active and contribute a great deal. (Yes, he provided leadership, but he wasn't alone and others who did so are still part of the community.)

He did a lot more than that Rob. For a lot of people, including myself, Dave *was* Boost for most of its lifespan. It probably didn't seem that way from inside Boost, but as an outsider if Dave decided you had a contribution to make he acted as the nexus point to make that happen. He managed the internal people required to achieve outcomes. Since his departure there hasn't been a dependable, reliable source of support for those outside Boost who wanted something fixed at a holistic level. Or indeed much support for anyone inside Boost. Trying to change or upgrade infrastructure is a Kafka-esque soul draining affair - even getting the Boost SSL cert replaced, which *still* hasn't happened, has proven that. Nobody knows who to go talk to about something half the time because the lists of names responsible for infrastructure are so out of date. It shouldn't be as hard as it is to contribute to Boost outside the libraries you maintain. It shouldn't be hard to upgrade infrastructure at all. It should be *easy*. It definitely shouldn't be the case that Boost infrastructure is rotting away, and nobody is doing anything about it and any attempts to get the steering committee to move on this go nowhere, despite repeated attempts by myself and others.

...

It doesn't help when members of the steering committee conspicuously fail to perform their duties, and specifically disavow taking any leadership position except to intentionally prevent and inhibit change.

I have no idea to what you're referring, but I highly doubt that this is a fair characterization of any member of the committee and certainly not of the committee itself.

The Steering Committee, admittedly not ideally named, was formed for two key purposes: to be able to commit Boost money, when required, and to make a decision for the community when there isn't a clear consensus, not unlike how a Review Manager considers reviews for a decision but doesn't just count the votes.

Any perceived reticence to make a decision on something may be due to unseen activity or to the misapprehension of what the committee should do.

If you have specific concerns, don't malign the committee in this fashion on the developer's list but raise them on the committee list. Others can follow that list, so the discussion won't be hidden.

You can thank Jon Kalb that I did not respond to this section in detail. What he has encouraged me to do instead is to try once again at getting you to act, so here we go: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boost-steering/VNYtWFnZuug Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

On 6 Jul 2015 at 7:57, Michael Caisse wrote:

On 07/06/2015 04:01 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:

...

Trying to change or upgrade infrastructure is a Kafka-esque soul draining affair - even getting the Boost SSL cert replaced, which *still* hasn't happened, has proven that. Nobody knows who to go talk to about something half the time because the lists of names responsible for infrastructure are so out of date.

This is has been too true for the SSL. I've been working as the middle man to try and get the cert updated for several weeks now. Not as a member of the steering committee... just as an annoyed member of the community. I finally have all the right players involved but still no personal control to make it happen. It is crazy frustrating!

We ought to have systems and processes in place such that the loss of control of vital infrastructure never happens again.

...

It shouldn't be as hard as it is to contribute to Boost outside the libraries you maintain. It shouldn't be hard to upgrade infrastructure at all. It should be*easy*.

Agreed! Were you able to find a list of who-is-responsible for infrastructure?

I gave up. I have a Boost library to get ready for review, and job interviews to do as I'll be unemployed from the 17th onwards. Indeed I just did one there before this email with Google Dublin.

Perhaps we can come up with a list of items and who in the community has permissions or control. If you found a list we could use that as a starting point. Otherwise, I suspect you and I have a list of things we have been trying to do that require knowing a responsible party. I'd be happy to try and keep such a thing up-to-date.

This is exactly where we don't agree. You, and most on the SC, believe that it's just a matter of business as usual - community members carve out some time to do boring stuff like keep lists fresh. I've been saying that isn't working because it hasn't been working. If you put processes and systems in place where it is automatically the case that these lists are kept fresh as part of those processes occurring, nobody needs to carve out time any more. One way, as I proposed, was an annual election of a Strategic Planning Committee. The newly elected members, as part of deciding how to spend their monies, would have to unavoidably maintain lists of people responsible for infrastructure. That's what I mean about instituting systems and processes which makes this stuff automatic.

...

It definitely shouldn't be the case that Boost infrastructure is rotting away, and nobody is doing anything about it and any attempts to get the steering committee to move on this go nowhere, despite repeated attempts by myself and others.

Well, I don't think this is a completely accurate characterization. You have been trying to do something. I am trying to do something. I have several infrastructure test servers running evaluations of things my team is trying to pull together for Boost. It sounds like Rene is working on some things. Maybe we should have a location that our non-library ventures and efforts are described/updated so people can know what is going on and get involved if they are interested?

Nothing poisons and embitters someone who volunteers and invests their family time into endeavours as quickly as their efforts being undervalued by the community to which they were contributed. There is a ton of that happening here, indeed I myself on more than one occasion have undervalued or not been aware of substantial efforts made by others into infrastructure. The consistent theme that I have been repeating since Dave left is support, support, support (not the financial kind, the emotional kind). Boost needs to emotionally support its community members far, far better than historically, and because we are all busy with uncertain schedules, instituting systems and processes which support those who volunteer makes that support automatic, same as keeping lists fresh. All the proposals I've sent to boost-steering have all been designed to make support better, and automatic, for anyone contributing outside the libraries they maintain i.e. at a holistic level. Hence the idea of a Strategic Planning Committee with ring fenced funding, you are really establishing an elected support group for anybody making changes to ten or more Boost libraries in some area or matter. The ring fenced funding makes people take them seriously as a group, plus forces them as a group to make decisions annually on how to spend which is far more important than spending the money itself. The money value itself is actually unimportant, it is the behaviours in people it generates. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

On 6 Jul 2015 at 18:29, Rob Stewart wrote:

...

Since his departure there hasn't been a dependable, reliable source of support for those outside Boost who wanted something fixed at a holistic level. Or indeed much support for anyone inside Boost. Trying to change or upgrade infrastructure is a Kafka-esque soul draining affair - even getting the Boost SSL cert replaced, which *still* hasn't happened, has proven that. Nobody knows who to go talk to about something half the time because the lists of names responsible for infrastructure are so out of date.

Several times, people who didn't know what was necessary tried to help, but many times folks were talking past one another with each party thinking the other would do something that didn't happen. Indeed, I thought things were moving on that front.

The traditional solution to that is to attach specific names to responsibilities, and to ping them every six months to ensure they are still willing to hold that responsibility. Somebody has to regularly do the pinging of course. c.f. my previous email to Michael about making keeping lists fresh automatic.

...

It shouldn't be as hard as it is to contribute to Boost outside the libraries you maintain. It shouldn't be hard to upgrade infrastructure at all. It should be *easy*.

When infrastructure grows organically and a small number of people do most of the work, it can be hard to effect changes. That's life. Add to that during goals and ideas of what should be done and it's easy to understand why things move slowly.

I disagree profoundly with this statement. Things happen here at a snail's pace, if at all, because of the very low quality management processes in place. It should never occur that people talk past one another or parties think the other side is going to take action first. It should never occur that a small number of people, in which there has been remarkably little churn over the years, do almost all the work. Other open source orgs, and ones much larger than Boost, don't have these scalability problems. They also quite literally teach this bread and butter management stuff in first and second year Management. It's very well understood.

...

It definitely shouldn't be the case that Boost infrastructure is rotting away, and nobody is doing anything about it and any attempts to get the steering committee to move on this go nowhere, despite repeated attempts by myself and others.

You continue to expect more of the Steering Committee than is in its charter.

You misunderstand my criticism. The Boost Steering Committee has the legal power to set any role for itself it chooses. The fact you don't is *your* choice not to do so. That is the source of my criticism. You have the power to do a lot more than you do, and you actively choose to not do so, or appoint subcommittees who would do so.

...

What he has encouraged me to do instead is to try once again at getting you to act, so here we go:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boost-steering/VNYtWFnZuug

That proposal is not all that different from one you proposed earlier. The Committee is awaiting some legal feedback to the best of my recollection, but is not averse to trying something like what you've proposed.

That's because I first sent proposals to boost-steering a year ago, and nothing has changed. Now I am repeating myself.

I appreciate your zeal and effort on behalf of Boost. I also appreciate your attempt to be positive despite your ongoing sense of frustration.

You have an enormous asset in the form of Jon Kalb. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/