Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-09 16:05:35

On 09/08/2024 16:54, Klemens Morgenstern wrote:

>> Also, we are missing a bit. Normally there is a proposed Boost library
>> for everybody to study and comment upon. Here we also need something for
>> everybody to study and comment upon, otherwise the exercise will be useless.
> 
> I think there's plenty of past interactions to study though.

I think we need somebody to summarise the position and the pros and cons 
thoughtfully. Because most here won't have the time to do that.

Without a central document, it just turns into a shouting match. How can 
anybody review that?

>> We don't have the review managers manage the review of their own
>> libraries for good reasons, so we can't do that here either.
> 
> Well, being on the board is different from being a director.
> And one would assume that a RM that is a member of the Boost Foundation board
> would be positively biased towards that foundation - just like an
> author is positively biased towards the inclusion of his library.
> Thus if the opposing party agrees (i.e. the CppAlliance) I don't see a problem.

I would guess those members who have never attended a meeting might not 
be so positive.

> I think there's plenty of communication, contributions & behaviour to review.
> I don't think a document would help a lot, as those would just be
> policy statements, which are essentially useless.

They're useless to those "in the know". But I don't think the majority 
are in the know.

I reckon a majority here could do with well written summaries to work 
from. Yes, that's pretty much a policy statement. All this is political, 
after all.

>> I appreciate all this is a bit novel. If this approach is seen as the
>> right way forwards, I guess we'd then need volunteers to do the work of
>> crafting the documents. But let's see if this approach is any good first.
> 
> Can you elaborate on what you'd expect to read in those docs?

Let's say:

1. At least three reasons why your camp should be chosen.

2. One reason for each of the other camps why it should not be chosen 
(and not more than that, no need to be negative).

3. What your camp commits and promises to do if another camp wins, for 
each of the other camps.

I think section no. 3 is probably the most important if we want to end 
the schism and draw a line under all this.

Niall