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

From: Alan de Freitas (alandefreitas_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-01 22:02:50

>
> > Regarding option (1), if I understand correctly, the C++ Alliance didn't
> > ask to control existing assets.
>
> They did try to buy the boost.org domain.
>

First, and most importantly, that's not what's being voted on.
The Boost Foundation cannot transfer control of the domain to the C++
Alliance because they don't own it either.
There's no point in voting on whether they can transfer ownership of
something that is not theirs.

Now, let's say we *were *voting about and discussing the C++ Alliance
willingness to own whatever "Boost-related assets" regardless of who owns
them.
Even in this case, only the website comes to mind. I never saw them ask to
own existing logos or anything else.
And even then, the C++ Alliance has never been interested in owning the
domain solely for its own sake until this problem came up.

As I described, the only (artificial) conflict here is the website: the
Boost Foundation is blocking it even though the community has agreed to
change it via a review process.
The C++ Alliance was never interested in implementing a website that the
community didn't accept or buying the domain for anything unrelated to
Boost.
What happened was the Foundation was blocking something the community
agreed with.
Buying the domain (again, not owned by the Foundation) was a strategy to
solve the problem. Not a goal in itself.

If the foundation weren't blocking the website or the community were
against it, I'm sure none of this would come up.
The Alliance would be just as happy with the domain still owned by Sonda
Dawes, and no one would even know about it.
Owning it became just a strategy for implementing what the community
wanted, and the Foundation was blocking.

But I diverge. Again, that's not what's being voted on. The domain is not
one of the assets they could transfer to the C++ Alliance.