Re: A Follow Up to My Original Note Re The Future of Boost

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-01 12:12:16

On 7/31/24 23:11, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
> 
> Here are what we believe to be the available options.
> 
>    1.
> 
>    The C++ Alliance assumes control of the Boost assets, including the
>    boost.org domain name. The Boost Foundation becomes uninvolved in any
>    decisions related to the Boost Libraries.
>    2.
> 
>    The Boost Foundation continues to be the stewards of the boost.org
>    domain name and related assets. New assets that are meant to be associated
>    with the Boost Libraries are transferred to the Boost Foundation. In any
>    matters related to the Boost Libraries, the Board will abide by any
>    decisions made by the developers but will no longer vote themselves on
>    issues as they relate to the Boost Libraries unless there truly is no clear
>    consensus or path forward.

I'm probably not going to be helpful, but I don't really like either of
the options, with the first one being slightly less preferable.

Although the input from The C++ Alliance members in many areas of Boost
is undeniable, the organization is apparently being run by a single
individual. I haven't met Vinnie, so I can only judge about his
personality based on his posts to this list and a small amount of
personal correspondence. My impression is that he is devoted to Boost,
but rather emotional and ambitious, and that may sometimes cloud his
judgment. It is possible that his interests won't always be aligned with
Boost, and I cannot be sure that his devotion to Boost won't change in
the future or that he won't try to transform Boost into something that
is not accepted by the wider Boost community. I'm sorry if this sounds
like a personal stab at Vinnie, but it really isn't. It is not my
intention to offend anyone, but given the structure of The C++ Alliance
funding, personalities need to be considered.

Regarding The C++ Alliance organization, its mission statement
(https://cppalliance.org/#mission) doesn't even mention Boost. In fact,
it focuses on C++ advancement in general and is closer to the Beman
Project in spirit. Boost Foundation mission statement
(https://sites.google.com/boost.org/boost-foundation/home#h.rszdmunawmm3),
I feel, is more aligned specifically with Boost, as it focuses on
library development and peer review process, which are effectively what
Boost is.

So, in short, I don't like the option 1 because I don't fully trust The
C++ Alliance to focus on Boost in the long term. Giving it full
exclusive control over key Boost infrastructure elements seems like too
much power in one's hands.

On the Boost Foundation side, I feel that its execution is far from
perfect. I'm not privy to details around Boost infrastructure, but it
seems like Boost Foundation is not active enough in its maintenance (at
least, legal or financial). For example, the legal issue regarding the
current Boost logo should have been resolved years ago, when it was
pointed to by Rene (reportedly). Instead, after the discussion was held
on this list recently, there's still no statement or announcement from
the Foundation regarding this issue - and I repeat, a legal issue, which
is exactly the kind of issues that are supposed to be helped with by the
Foundation. There are other issues with Boost infrastructure owned by
Foundation, like outdated software stack running the current website and
ML, or issues with package downloads. Those issues go mostly unnoticed
by the community as the vast majority of members simply tend to their
libraries and don't maintain the infrastructure. Boost Foundation, as
the owner of the infrastructure elements, should have been more
proactive in exposing and solving the ongoing issues with it - whether
by seeking volunteers in the community or hiring external staff. There
definitely should be better communication between the Foundation and the
community.

I don't like the option 2 because it sounds like maintaining the status
quo with no changes on the Boost Foundation side. And changes are
needed. Additionally, if I understood correctly, it suggests
transferring ownership of the assets developed by The C++ Alliance to
the Boost Foundation, and I don't feel this will be acceptable by The
C++ Alliance. I think, the best you could realistically ask for is
acceptable licensing terms and shared control and responsibilities
(preferably, in written form).

As I said before, the best solution would be for the two organizations
to collaborate. But due to personal disagreements that option is no
longer on the table. Which is detrimental to Boost and is a huge letdown
from both of the orgs. So in the "either or" situation, when I have to
pick between options that I don't like, I'm not going to pick any, which
means keeping things as they are. I just hope Boost Foundation will be
able to improve and do a better job in the future.