Re: [Boost-announce] Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03

From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-04 18:53:11

Asset Stewardsip Review

Transparency:

* I have worked for years with both
sides of this review, forged bonds
on technical and personal levels
and never even cared about that.

* I have been (on several occasions)
offered money by the Committe for
my perpetual work on Boost.GSoC,
yet refused categorically to accept
any money.

I operate as in independent reseacher
and developer. I have no financial ties
with any thing, entity or ogranization
whatsoever when engaging in FOSS.

My popular text-book Real-Time C++
is not affiliated with Boost nor with
the C++ Alliance.

Here is my review of the proposed
Boost.AssetStewardsipReview

## What is your evaluation of the design?

The design from the C++ Alliance
is lucidly clear with good structure.
This makes the proposed
Boost.AssetStewardsipReview
from the C++ Alliance easy to use.
I will categorically accept it below.

Their description is simultaneously quite clear,
powerful and transparent. The transparancy
revolves around evactly extracted data regarding
both trends in Boost (sadly negative developer
participation) as well as monetary funding,
seemingly at an all-time high.

Intuitively, I appreciated much more
the congenial, all-encompassing style
and rhetoric of the Committee.
The emphasis on community and steady
continuity came through loud and clear.
This reached me on a personal level and
is much more consistent with my personal
style than that style so far revealed
by the the Alliance.

As a long-time contributor,
that moved me, so much that it was
almost on an emotional level.

Yet when using, developing, promoting
and ultimately funding Boost, we need hard
motion forward. And this forward motion
comes with the somewhat harder edges
and forward-moving rehetorical style
of the Alliance.

## What is your evaluation of the implementation?

Excellent.

A few suggestions for potential
evolution of Boost.AssetStewardsipReview.

Get your rhetoric on posts, communications
and stylistic aspects to be more congenial.
This subjective observation can be
interpreted however you want it to be,
but I would prefer more mild tones.

The strong, progressive forward-motion
of the Alliance, tempered with a more
congeinal style reminiscent of the Committee
would have been a perfect match.

Repeatedly, and publicly I called both
sides out to form a feeble, united
common front. Yet failure to do so causes
us to choose door number 1 or door
number 2.

I select the C++ Alliance proposal.

I would like to see some evidence of
a future which ushers in a long-term
period of peace. I do not want some
lurking thing named the Beman project
to cause petty, dissent for years to
come. So please deal with that
(or whatever it will be) presently
and refrain from straining us and
dividing us over this in the future.

## Operational aspects

The C++ Alliance has brought our
potency and quality to a level seemingly
unreachable without them. We have CI/CD
that actually runs. Docs, Libs and
productive things associated with
them are working.

We have highly exacting consumers in
all areas. In my areas of Math and Multiprecison,
we would be weaker and poorer without
the drive, funding and expertise
of the C++ Alliance.

In testing, new aspects of coverage,
fuzzing, pure-portability hands-down
are better than ever. And honestly
prior to the advent of the Alliance,
these somewhat rudimentary quality
aspects seemed unatainable.

Now it's an everyday thing. With the
C++ Alliance, we simply live the quality
lifestyle in our code and deliver
it to the clients.

Boost libraries are showing improved
quality with Code Coverage reports
and statistics. Although this adds
no real functionality, I think it
helps prove overall quality.

When compiling, I really enjoy using
advanced compiler warnings. Two of
my favorites on GCC are -Wconversion
and -Wsign-conversion. When using these,
I find progress from the C++ Alliance
with still al lot of work to go.

The C++ Alliance embraces these
rudimentary quality attributes
and pays for them to get done.

Providing evidence of running modern
syntax checker(s) might improve
confidence in all of oure libraries
and/or reduce the libraries' vulnerability.
The C++ Alliance seems committed to this
essential goal.

- What is your evaluation of the documentation?

It's great. The C++ Alliance proposal
cleared up all goals and wiped doubts
regarding tranparency off the table.
This proposal is lucidly clear.

- What is your evaluation of the potential
usefulness of the
Boost.AssetStewardsipReview?

Exceptionally high. Use the C++ Alliance
and and embrace their
Boost.AssetStewardsipReview

- Did you try to use the
Boost.AssetStewardsipReview?

Yes daily and it just works.

What compiler? Did you have any problems?

Yes absolutely. They support the normal
stuff. Of course still weak on deeply
embedded targets, but everyone is.

I tried with MSVC 2019, 2022, GCC 11-13
No issues.

- How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?

Years. And I grow weary of the back-and-forth
on the lists.

- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Not really. I have no concern whatsoever
about the financial nor the legal aspects
of this proposal. On a personal level,
I found it highly disturbing to have
this conflict dragged into my
face on essentially a daily basis.

Please resolve this.

I have written many programs and
applications based on and using Boost.

That development activity is hindered
by the constant unrest on the boards.

So deal with it, adapt and get
a consistent approach.

## Do you think the C++ Alliance
proposal should be accepted?

Yes!

Christopher Kormanyos

    On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 02:55:55 AM GMT+2, Glen Fernandes via Boost-announce <boost-announce_at_[hidden]> wrote:  
 
 Everyone,

The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next
week, September 3rd.

For reference, the review schedule is:
https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html

The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal:
https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf

Also attached to this email as:
CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf

The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's
consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and
will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST).

A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has
visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list.

The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone
to participate. The official review start announcement email next week
will detail the process for participation.

Thank you,
- Glen
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-announce