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

From: Hans Dembinski (hans.dembinski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-01 12:59:16

> On 1. Aug 2024, at 14:12, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Same here, +1 for option 2. 

I rather have inefficient and slow progress, considering the alternative. Res publica.