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

From: Alan de Freitas (alandefreitas_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-01 20:15:07

>
> 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.
>

This is a false dilemma based on strong cognitive biases being reinforced
here.
First of all, both options end with the Boost Foundation abiding by
decisions made by the developers.
So when we remove that redundancy, the options sound like 1) The C++
Alliance controls "everything," and 2) The Boost Foundation controls
"everything."
However, the materiality of things is that none of these organizations want
to or can control "everything" even if they want to.
Whatever wins will not be implemented because it would be impossible to
implement.

In particular:

- Regarding investment (what they're doing with the power they have):
    - Developers are the only ones investing in their libraries unless they
ask for help.
    - The C++ Alliance provides a relevant part of the infrastructure and
human resources needed to maintain and test the libraries and is trying to
improve the website.
    - The Boost Foundation is focused on conferences, if I understand
correctly.
- In terms of control (what power they have):
    - Developers are the only ones controlling their libraries unless they
decide to delegate this power.
    - The C++ Alliance doesn't officially control anything besides whatever
they are providing themselves.
    - The Boost Foundation is blocking the new website even though it is
not capable of doing so itself.

The point is that there's no intersection or conflict here. Different
people are controlling and investing in different things.
The C++ Alliance doesn't seem interested in organizing conferences, and the
Boost Foundation is not investing in the website or providing the
infrastructure Boost needs.
None of them can control the libraries.

So the maybe less political actionable option I would vote for is something
like "Almost nothing changes":

- The community still controls the libraries.
- The C++ Alliance keeps providing infrastructure and human resources
needed to maintain and test the libraries.
- The Boost Foundation stops trying to block the new website at any cost
unless the C++ Alliance does not implement the requests from the community.
- The Boost Foundation keeps doing what they are already doing.

Regarding option (1), if I understand correctly, the C++ Alliance didn't
ask to control existing assets.
They also open-sourced everything it created and offered to use reasonable
licenses the community is OK with.
Also, neither the Boost Foundation nor the C++ Alliance can or will control
the libraries.
So, if I have to, I'd vote (1) because once you remove the noise, it's
basically saying the Boost Foundation will stop blocking the website.