Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-13 00:15:14

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:08 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> The Formal Review Process is typically called upon to answer the question
> of whether a library should be accepted into the collection. I have
> proposed that we use the same process to determine the question of
> stewardship. It is not perfect, yet it is both familiar and enduring.
>

The current process for making necessary directional decisions is securing
consensus on the mailing list. Failing that, the Boost Foundation board is
entrusted to make a decision for the community. Since Vinnie’s proposal is
to replace the Boost Foundation with his non-profits, the status quo
process is inadequate.

John Phillips made good points
<https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257349.php> about how the
library review process, as typically run, isn’t ideally suited for
organizational changes like this. Additionally, we’re giving a lot of power
to exactly one (hopefully) trusted review manager. The alternative is a
democratic process with voting. That has its own difficulties (Who gets a
vote? How can fake votes be prevented?).

In spite of its drawbacks I can’t think of anything better than a modified
library review process. Here are some needed changes (negotiable, of
course):

   1.

   There should be a period (maybe a month) with a request for proposals.
   There are two (maybe three?) on the table and another I know of in
   development. These proposals should answer questions such as “What problems
   is this organizational change attempting to solve? How is this in line with
   Boost’s mission and values? What will the impact be for current volunteers?
   How does this proposal meet the changing needs of the Boost and wider C++
   communities? What risks are there with this approach and how can they be
   mitigated? How will the greater C++ community react to this development?”
   2.

   Proposal writers are encouraged to publish their proposals early and use
   feedback to refine them until the official review period is underway.
   3.

   The proposals should be specific about how expenses will be financed,
   how decisions are made, and how decision makers will be put in place.
   4.

   For fiscal entities, structure and bylaws should be stated.
   5.

   All proposals should be reviewed during the same period.
   6.

   The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in
   the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized.
   7.

   The review period should be longer than normal. Perhaps a three week
   period. The review manager should take into consideration feedback from all
   sources.

We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost
Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review
process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it.

-- David