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

From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-01 17:59:36

On 01/08/2024 13:12, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> On 7/31/24 23:11, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
>> Here are what we believe to be the available options.
>>
>>     1.
>>
>>     The C++ Alliance assumes control of the Boost assets, including the
>>     boost.org domain name. The Boost Foundation becomes uninvolved in any
>>     decisions related to the Boost Libraries.
>>     2.
>>
>>     The Boost Foundation continues to be the stewards of the boost.org
>>     domain name and related assets. New assets that are meant to be associated
>>     with the Boost Libraries are transferred to the Boost Foundation. In any
>>     matters related to the Boost Libraries, the Board will abide by any
>>     decisions made by the developers but will no longer vote themselves on
>>     issues as they relate to the Boost Libraries unless there truly is no clear
>>     consensus or path forward.
> I'm probably not going to be helpful, but I don't really like either of
> the options, with the first one being slightly less preferable.

Exactly, it's sort of like asking a panel of folks who don't know each 
other (the developers) to conduct a job interview with two applicants 
they also don't know.  Expect an entirely random answer!

People I do know and respect, tell me the website would be safe in the 
Alliance's hands.  Also in the Foundation's hands *provided* they can 
find a way to work with Vinnie - my understanding is that for several 
releases now there would have been no releases at all without the 
Alliance putting resources in.

So I guess I'm weakly in the (2) camp.  But I would also like to explore 
the "neutral 3rd party" option to see what that has to offer.

Best, John.