Re: New Website: State of the review / pending issues

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-04 15:05:28

On 3/4/24 17:38, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 3/4/24 15:50, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
>>
>> 4) Terms of use: It was suggested that there needed to be a page like
>> "Terms of Use" composed with help of a lawyer. AFAIK there is a new page
>> (https://www.boost.io/terms-of-use/) that is much simpler and easier to
>> read than the original. I'm not sure if Andrey's comments are addressed
>> with the new TOU. Andrey, it's ok now?
> 
> The relevant issue is:
> 
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/956
> 
> Yes, the updated TOU resolves the issues I had with it originally.
> 
>> 6) Moderation: We had a discussion about how moderation should be
>> performed in the site (mainly as an anti-spam mechanism) and how it's
>> implemented now in the mailing list (volunteers). My understanding is
>> that the new website has some moderation tools so that anyone can submit
>> news, etc... and that the same ML method (volunteers blessed in the ML)
>> should be used to appoint the moderators for the site (not necessarily
>> the same people that moderate the ML).
> 
> At this point, it's not clear what is going to be moderated. Vinnie has
> announced that the forum idea has been cancelled, and no support for
> comments is planned.
> 
> I'm not sure what will be the mechanism for submitting news items. If
> it's through PRs, as with the current website, then moderation is the
> natural part of that process.
> 
> In relation to this, it's not clear what's the purpose of user
> registration. What does it offer to the user?
> 
>> I don't know if this summary is accurate, the aim was synthesize several
>> ML threads into a single post, certainly I could be wrong on several
>> points, please correct me in that case.
> 
> I believe, the most important issue left unresolved is regarding IP
> ownership and control over the new website. David posted that Boost
> Foundation will have a meeting about it mid-March.
> 
> There are also a number of technical issues reported on GitHub. Some of
> them that I consider important for adequately replacing the current
> website are:
> 
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/1000
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/996
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/951
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/946
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/945
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/943
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/939
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/932
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/786

And as soon as I wrote that, I went ahead and created a few more:

https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/1004
https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/1001

I should probably stop inspecting the new website or I'll overflow the
issue tracker and The C++ Alliance members will start cursing me on
their lunch breaks. If they haven't started already. :)

>> Now the next question is: *What's missing technically so that the new
>> website can to live?*
> 
> It is already "live" as it is accessible through boost.io.
> 
> If you mean switching boost.org to the new website then the IP and
> control issue I mentioned is blocking it.
>