Re: [boost-steering] CMake for Boost initiative

[Jon Kalb]

Robert,

Since you and I have discussed this a bit, you know that I support this in 
general, but I’ve several reservations about this writeup and urge you not to 
publish this as is.

I’ll make a few comments inline, but the big red flag is the offer of money. 
No. Just no. This opens several different cans of worms and can go wrong in so 
many ways. Adding money to a successful dynamic can have unexpected 
consequences, including some that we might not be able to recover from.

Further, there is simply no reason to do it. As you’ve pointed out, the amount 
is insufficient to compensate for the effort involved and the appearance of 
“doing it for the money,” might even inhibit submissions from some individuals. 
All risks of it blowing up in our faces aside, it may be counterproductive and, 
although it may inspire trivial “why-not-I-might-get-lucky-and-win-some-money” 
submissions, it is certainly insufficient to motivate a submission capable of 
addressing the issue successfully.

I’m not certain about what the details of the announcement should be, but I 
think there are some high-level issues that need to be addressed.

Thanks.

Jon

> On Nov 17, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Robert Ramey  wrote:
> 
> I am now ready to announce Request for Proposals on boost developer's list 
> and concurrently on reddit/r/cpp.  Before I do this I wanted to clarify some 
> issues and give you all one final opportunity to spit ball it.
> 
> a) I've "re-purposed" the boost review process to permit the simultaneous 
> review of multiple submissions.  I just want to make sure that there is a 
> consensus that this is OK so no one will complain after I take the leap to 
> open the argument "This is not the traditional review" or Ramey doesn't have 
> the authority to change boost procedures. or ...
> 
> b) I'm including ron garcia (review wizard) on this email to make sure that 
> he also OK with this and to ask him to place these proposals in the queue for 
> review 15 February 2019.
> 
> c) I've alluded to the award of a $5000 "prize" to the author of the selected 
> proposal upon integration into boost.  David raised the question as to trying 
> to make this more flexible to make it more fair and encourage collaboration.  
> Do this would put the review manager (me - unless you've got some one 
> stupider than I am with a death wish to take on the task) in a sort of 
> impossible situation of trying to create "fairness" where none is possible.  
> One of the great virtues of the boost review process is that the reviewer 
> must actually make a thumbs up/down decision.  The avoids the situation where 
> he gets sucked into the library design by accident.  It forces all the 
> participants to get their licks in during the review - knowing that it will 
> be a definite discussion ending decision.  It may not be perfect, it many not 
> be fair, but it's better than the alternative.  It's like plastic surgery, 
> perfect always ends up worse than better.
> 
> d) Right now the prize is unfunded.  I've got 3 months to address this. It's 
> my plan to solicit sponsors for this award in the amount of $1000 each.  I'll 
> be pitching: Boost, C++ alliance, Kitware and previous sponsors of C++Now.  I 
> envision this working in the following manner. Payments are made to the Boost 
> account at the software conservancy to the amount of $6000.  They take their 
> cut off the top and cut a check when requested for $5000.  You'll have to 
> decide on the mechanics.
> 
> Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
> 
> Below is the document I plan on publishing.
> 
> 
> Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost
> ==
> 
> For some time, there has been interest on many users and developers of Boost 
> Libraries to make Boost easier to use with CMake. Discussions in the past 
> have not resulted in an implementation which has been widely accepted.  Never 
> the less, hope springs eternal, and we intend to attempt this once again.  It 
> seems that often there are difficulties before such projects even start in 
> that there are wide discrepancies as to what should be the goals and 
> expectations of Boost support of CMake. The aim of this document is to try to 
> build a consensus on this question before encouraging CMake developers and 
> experts to submit proposals for Boost support of CMake.

This introduction is inadequate for several reasons, not just because “interest 
on many users” doesn’t make sense and “nevertheless" is one word.

It is depressingly negative. “This is unlikely to succeed, but hope springs 
eternal that maybe this time we’ll get lucky and stumble onto a solution.”

Most importantly, it doesn’t say what you are asking for. From what I recall of 
our discussion, you want to see designs for how to add CMake support to Boost, 
rather than complete implementations. That means that rather than a Call for 
Submissions it should be probably be a Call for Proposals. Spell out what you 
are calling for:

We 

Re: [boost-steering] CMake for Boost initiative

[Nevin Liber]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:25 AM Robert Ramey  wrote:

> I am now ready to announce Request for Proposals on boost developer's
> list and concurrently on reddit/r/cpp.  Before I do this I wanted to
> clarify some issues and give you all one final opportunity to spit ball it.
>

My questions are:

   - Has the legal representation for Boost signed off on this?  For
   instance:  what happens if you can't raise the money?  Is Boost on the hook
   for it?  (Yes, I know that you want to write it so both you and Boost
   aren't liable, but I don't know if you can from a legal perspective, as
   IANAL.)
   - What happens to the reputation of Boost if things go wrong (for
   instance, the review manager decides not to pay anyone the money)?

-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber    +1-847-691-1404

-- 
The Boost Steering Committee webpage: 
https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Boost Steering Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to boost-steering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to boost-steering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/boost-steering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/boost-steering/CAGg_6%2BMvUEVz7mDpkLpTJ_6jE4EOZ4vBvbWR%2B%2Bx4cx-bOf94yQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.