Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03 (Updated)

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-17 20:29:26

On 8/30/24 4:10 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> Update: The Boost Foundation proposal mentioned in the original
> announcement has been published.
> 
> The Boost Foundation proposal is attached to this email:
> BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf
> 
> A link to the above will also be available in the review commencement
> email that will be posted on 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
> 
> The original announcement email included an attachment of the above:
> https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257569.php

Here is my review.

 From BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf

"Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal
To continue carrying out the Alliance vision to revitalize Boost, a 
change in governance is needed. Our proposal is straightforward:
● The C++ Alliance becomes the fiscal sponsor for Boost under the terms 
of the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement provided in Appendix 1.
● The C++ Alliance receives eligible donations for Boost, or donates 
directly to Boost, and custodies ownership of Boost’s resources which 
currently include domain names, trademarks, and a server.
● The Steering Committee determines how resources are used.
This developers-first approach leverages the useful sponsorship model 
already developed by the Software Freedom Conservancy, and allows the 
C++ Alliance to minimize the risks incurred when making large 
investments in the project."

I recommend rejection of this proposal.

I believe that the best way forward for boost is to reform the current 
Boost Foundation while maintaining it's authority over Boost assets.

"Boost Assets" include but are not the following:

a) Boost.org domain name.
b) mail/testing servers.
c) mailing list
d) Stewardship of C++Now conference and revenues generated there from.
e) Other assets

Some definitions:

a) Boost Library Foundation
The Boost Library Foundation is the 501(c)3 non-profit behind the Boost 
C++ Libraries, the C++Now conference, and the Boost C++ Standardization 
Effort.  The current bylaws of the Boost Library Foundation can be found 
here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view

b) C++ Alliance
Described here: https://cppalliance.org

c) Boost Mission - I've synthesized this from reviewing the original 
boost home page, the boost library foundation home page and C++ alliance 
boost.io page.

Development of high quality, expert reviewed, legally unencumbered, 
open-source libraries advancing and disseminating software development 
best practices.

d) Boost Software
   * either library code or tool
   * distributed as C++ code.
   * subjected to the Boost Formal Review process and accepted under 
Boost rules

e) Boost Assets
   * boost.org domain name
   * mailing list
   * various servers for hosting, test, etc.
   * boost logo
   * other assets

f) Boost Community Member
   * Author of Boost Software
   * Officially recognized maintainer of Boost Software
   * Author of documentation of Boost Software
   * Participant as a reviewer in a Boost Formal Software Review
   * Speaker at the Boost Conference currently named C++Now
   * others to be determined

Proposed changes to Boost Library Foundation bylaws. refer to:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view

ARTICLE II
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Section 0. Membership. Members of the board of directors shall be 
members of the Boost Community.

Section 1. Powers and Duties. Except as otherwise provided in the 
certificate of incorporation or these bylaws, the Board shall have the 
general power to control and manage the affairs and property of the 
Foundation and shall have full power to adopt rules and regulations 
governing the conduct of the Foundation’s affairs and actions of the 
Board.  The Board shall have the power to control and manage policies 
for acceptance of new Boost Software and the usage and maintenance thereof.

Section 3. Election and Tenure. The members of the Board of Directors 
shall be elected by Boost Community Members. ...

Other changes to made as necessary to be consistent with the above.

Note: I don't see anything in here which would support projects like the 
Beman project as part of Boost.  So any formal connection between Boost 
Foundation and Beman Project should be severed.

As can be seen, the intention here is to place the ultimate authority 
over boost in the hands of Boost Community Members who have actually 
invested personal efforts into the growth and success of boost.  Once 
these changes to bylaws are implemented and a new Board of Directors is 
elected other issues can be addressed.  I don't intend to discuss any of 
these issues here other than to mention them to give a better idea of 
how I expect Boost to function with the above changes.

a) replacement of traditional Boost Discussion Policy with a "Code of 
Conduct"

b) assignment of responsibility for administration of Boost to external 
parts such as C++ Alliance and/or perhaps others.

c) implementation of policies requiring the formal review of all Boost 
Software and procedures.  Currently, much of boost is 
maintained/developed/deployed on personal initiative of boost community 
members without restraint and/or responsibility of the Boost Foundation 
Board of Directors. I would hope that the new board would define 
procedures which would subject these kinds of procedures to more formal 
review by the general membership.  Specifically, I see opportunities for 
improvement in procedures for building/testing/deployment of Boost 
Software and I would like to see big improvements in this area.  As far 
as I know, this is the only proposal which will provide a means to 
permit this to happen.

d) I would hope that by "resetting" the board of directors with a new 
constituency, mission and authority would result in the crafting of a 
new framework which would make it possible to delegate some of the 
effort to managing boost to the C++ Alliance.  I would also hope that by 
guaranteeing that recognition and some authority to boost authors and 
maintainers, we might make it more attractive for more volunteers - 
particularly boost library maintainers.

The original proposal presented a simple binary option.  (paraphrasing) 
Hand over assets to C++ Alliance or ... (do nothing?).

Robert Ramey