Re: Option 1: Alliance stewardship of Boost

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-06 13:34:00

El 06/08/2024 a las 15:13, Peter Dimov via Boost escribió:
> Vinnie Falco wrore:
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]
>> <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 	I don't think this is necessary. Historically, outsourcing our decision
>> making
>> 	to some external entity has never worked, but even if it did, I don't see
>> why
>> 	we'd need a registered nonprofit for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Someone has to do it since the Foundation will no longer be responsible.
> 
> Why? The Foundation has never even tried to do this, and the previous such
> attempt (the infamous CMake announcement) has been a tremendous success.

If the directional decision needs some shared resources, then the 
"entity" somehow needs to participate.

Also, this type of "directional decision when consensus cannot be 
reached" feature comes from the Steering Committee times (which was 
formed in 2011), so we can't say it's not in the Boost tradition:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224160315/https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/

However I agree that the outcome of such "directional decisions" is 
mixed. It failed with CMake, but we can say that SVN to Git migration 
(https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/05/193493.php) decision was 
better handled.

Best,

Ion