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

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-02 12:07:49

On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:42 AM Alexander Grund via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> My concern is also the apparent shift from a low-cost, low-maintenance (website?)
> solution to something seemingly requiring vast amounts of money and effort.
> As far as I understood the old website was more or less static HTML
> while the new one requires a considerable backend to provide dynamic services.

The old website is just one service provided by the "wowbagger" server
which currently hosts much of the infrastructure required to support
Boost. There is also the mailing list, currently using mailman2 which
is no longer supported. There are various scripts and services such as
the commit-bot which updates the submodules in the superproject as
needed, scripts to perform builds on demand as the superproject
changes and publish the rendered documentation for master and develop
branches to the website, and more.

> That might not be sustainably long-term or in case someone (in this case
> the C++ Alliance) steps down and someone else has to volunteer to take over.

This is a reasonable concern but I think that the fears might be
overblown. In the unlikely event that the C++ Alliance needs to focus
its efforts elsewhere or cease operations, we would support a graceful
transition for the community. The Alliance consists mostly of Boost
volunteers just like everyone else except that they are compensated.
They have their own libraries which they author and maintain. Matt
Borland for example, was already a long-time Boost contributor before
becoming an Alliance Staff Engineer. Our people are Boost volunteers
first, employees second. Ask anyone who works with us, such as
Marshall Clow, for example, who was our first hire.

The idea that the Alliance is controlled by one person who can simply
walk away and leave Boost worse off, is not a serious one. I for one,
have several libraries in Boost and several more in development. And
there is no desire for me to abandon my work with all the years I have
put into it. I do have concerns about the long-term sustainability of
the Boost project, because there is no well-defined plan or visible
efforts made to replenish our diminishing ranks with new, talented
engineers. This is something I am trying to change, even in the face
of some rather vocal opposition to my methods (such as a trademarked
logo).

> I would prefer if the domain is ultimately owned by the Boost Foundation
> as the inactivity related to those matters at least shows that nothing bad will happen.

The boost.org domain expired in 2022, becoming unavailable for almost
two days. If Beman Dawes' surviving spouse had passed away at any time
before the Alliance made its offer to the estate, the boost.org domain
would go to auction in 2025.

> I expect the same (or even improvements) when the Alliance owns it but I do understand
> the sentiments against having essentially a single person controlling it and what will happen
> to the domain once the Alliance shifts its interest after having bought it for a large amount of money.

Our offer to the estate was for a total of $35,000 plus legal fees.
The sum is broken down into $5,000 to the executor, and $30,000 to
establish the "Beman Scholarship." This offer still stands of course.
It is not "a large amount of money."

The boost.io domain, on the other hand... that was rather expensive
($135,000). It is looking more and more like we will not be needing
it, thankfully.

> I would prefer a shared ownership though such that in case of shifted interest
> ...
> In case that person looses interest

This seems to be a common, reasonable fear regarding Alliance
stewardship of shared resources.  Given that Boost's current
governance structure has enabled stagnation. I think this is a problem
worth solving. I am already putting together a long-term plan for the
continued operation of the Alliance when I am no longer present. We
could also figure out some kind of backup plan which developers can
utilize if Alliance governance becomes unsuited for the project.

Yes I think this needs to be addressed. It will be easier to attract
new people to the project if it is seen that it has a durable
foundation.

Thanks