Re: Option 1: Alliance stewardship of Boost

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-06 13:37:55

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 6:13 AM <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Why? The Foundation has never even tried to do this, and the previous such
> attempt (the infamous CMake announcement) has been a tremendous success.
>

I can't claim expertise to know whether breaking deadlocks is a function
necessary for the Boost project. However, since the Foundation will disavow
this responsibility when going with Option 1, it seems prudent to cover
bases. Of course, if you feel this is unimportant or even detrimental we
could explore what not having it looks like.

However, note that for whatever non-profit ends up as the steward, it will
be impossible to prevent it from assuming unimportant or detrimental
functions, even stacked with Boost authors. Bureaucracies like to do things
(for example, WG21 designing their own libraries), and telling them they
must not do things tends to fall on deaf ears. Furthermore it is difficult
and sometimes impossible to structure a corporation's bylaws in a way to
prohibit certain things, because attempting to do so runs afoul of laws
regarding corporate governance. Future board members can always undo prior
actions.

Thanks