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

From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-02 22:01:39

Hi all,

I want to start by expressing my gratitude to Kristen. She’s done, and
continues to do, an incredible job in her tenure on the Boost
Foundation including leadership of a project to migrate Wowbagger off
legacy platforms, running the Diversity and Inclusion team, and now as
board chair. I especially appreciate her willingness to address our
present challenges, which are stressful to say the least.

In this email I’d like to explore what options 1 and 2 look like from
an operational perspective (wearing my Boost Foundation Executive
Director hat) and then outline my opinion (as an on and off
contributor of about 15 years, usually in the form of mailing list
discussions and reviews).

The Boost Foundation is the fiscal sponsor/entity for four projects
right now: 1) the Boost project, 2) the C++Now conference, 3) the C++
standardization project, and 4) the Beman project. Going with the
first option means that the Boost project would cease to be a Boost
Foundation project and the C++ Alliance would take this role. What
would happen is this:

1. The Boost Foundation donates the boost.org domain to the C++
Alliance once it acquires it. The Beman Dawes estate is in the process
of donating it to the Boost Foundation after conducting an impartial
investigation ultimately concluding that the Boost Foundation is most
aligned with Beman Dawes’s ideals. The process may take up to a year
due to legal processes.

2. Wowbagger, which runs the mailing lists, website, and is used for
releases, would be transferred to the C++ Alliance.

3. Our mailgun account, another component in the mailing list system,
would be transferred to the C++ Alliance.

4. We would sign an agreement which makes the C++ Alliance “the owner
of all right, title, and interest in and to all trademarks associated
solely with the Boost software project throughout the world and the
goodwill associated therewith including the trademark Boost in
stylized and unstylized form”. These trademarks were transferred to
the Boost Foundation from the Software Freedom Conservancy in 2022 so
we would pass these on to the C++ Alliance.

5. From a financial standpoint, the Foundation spends about ~$13k
annually on the Boost Project. These expenses would become the
responsibility of the C++ Alliance.

Additionally, I assume the Boost Foundation will take up a new name
since it will henceforth no longer be associated with the Boost
project.

The Boost Foundation is also tasked with committing the Boost project
to specific action “where consensus cannot be reached, but a decision
must be made”. This role would presumably fall upon the C++ Alliance
board of directors: Vinnie Falco, Rene Rivera, and Jon Kalb. (For
reference, the Boost Foundation’s board of directors consists of
Kristen Shaker, Glen Fernandes, Inbal Levi, Michael Caisse, Bob
Steagall, Zach Laine, Jeff Garland, Peter Dimov, and Matthew Guidry,
and me)

Option 2 is the status quo (the Boost Foundation stewards the
trademark, domain, website, mailing list, etc.) with the additional
caveat that any “new assets meant to be associated with the Boost
Libraries”, like logos, would be transferred to the Boost Foundation.
The additional caveat means the board can legally protect the use of
such assets from misalignment with the Boost developers and mission,
as it does with the assets it currently owns.

With Option 2 there are several additional open questions. What
happens with the new website? Will the C++ Alliance be allowed to fund
a CppCon sponsorship in Boost’s name? This depends entirely on whether
there is consensus among developers for these things and willingness
of volunteers to execute them.

I’m in favor of option 2, but I want to fully acknowledge the
drawbacks of the Boost Foundation. First, it is staffed with 100%
volunteers who, in many instances, don’t follow through with their
commitments. When I was chair, I would try to remind folks, make
calls, etc., but there’s only so much leverage one has with
volunteers. It’s especially challenging when such folks have exclusive
access to resources making it impossible for someone else to pick up
the slack. Simple things like getting a bill paid or getting a quorum
for a meeting were incredibly hard. Other tasks, like completing the
transfer from the Software Freedom Conservancy or dealing with getting
the boost.org domain from the Beman estate were gargantuan. On the
other hand, when there’s an emergency, the Board has consistently
pulled through.

I want to say that we don’t have those problems anymore, but we still
do. What I can say is that there’s been improvement. I recruited
several new board members who do follow through with their commitments
and Kristen is one of those. I installed a monthly meeting cadence
(instead of yearly) to keep it active, spelled out expectations for
board members, added redundancy with our key holders, introduced
public meeting minutes for transparency, and built consensus around
the Boost Foundation mission.

That being said, I don’t have a perfect record. While I’ve frequently
picked up the ball where others have dropped it, I don't always have
the time or patience to do this. Worse, I’ve lost my cool when I’ve
perceived hostile takeovers and attacks on the Boost Foundation,
sending out emails embarrassing everyone involved.

It’s impossible to know what Beman Dawes would do in this situation,
but I gotta believe he would want to help improve the board rather
than dump it. Like Kristen said, we have open board seats. Those who
are willing to be a team player and put in the work to help are more
than welcome.

Yeah it’s messy and frequently frustrating, but that’s how it is with
volunteer organizations. That’s Boost.

-- David