Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: Kristen Shaker (kristen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-19 23:16:39

>
> Traditionally the formal reviews work like this:

* Exactly one proposal is considered

Given what we are reviewing is an unprecedented and fundamental paradigm
shift for the Boost community rather than an up or down vote on a library,
it makes sense to me that we would adapt the review process to best suit
the task at hand rather than limit ourselves to what has come before.

Instead, we might focus solely on whether the Alliance is a suitable
> replacement for the Foundation. If our review outcome indicates otherwise,
> future proposals can be decided in new reviews. This process is not about
> soliciting bids from multiple organizations, but rather preserving the
> ability to continue delivering proven results with existing leadership.

This process is largely about providing the developers with the agency to
make a decision regarding their governance. I think allowing them to put
forward proposals is part of facilitating that agency. Additionally, a
change in governance structure would be a huge and disruptive shift. It's
crucial that we do not find ourselves transitioning between different
governing structures every 6 months. I believe a longer than average review
process is in the best interest of the community. It is important that we
get this right and that may mean taking a little longer.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 3:04 PM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Kristen Shaker via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I would encourage anyone with a competing proposal to submit it for
>> review.
>
> ...
>> The idea of this is to come out of the proceedings with an unambiguous
>> signal
>
>
> Traditionally the formal reviews work like this:
>
> * Exactly one proposal is considered
> * Anyone can participate in the review
> * Reviews can be submitted anonymously, or even privately
> * A review can contain anything (including, competing proposals)
> * Rejected proposals can always be resubmitted, with endorsement
>
> The need for this formal review stems from a governance conflict which has
> lasted for quite a long time. The health and reputation of the project have
> been damaged, and the community deserves a timely resolution. We should
> review the proposal being offered and not wait for new proposals to
> materialize. If new information comes to light, the review manager can
> decide whether there are sufficient grounds that the proposal being
> considered should be rejected to give the community more time for
> consideration. And in this case, new proposals should use the same
> workflow: they are endorsed, and put on the review schedule. This ensures
> that every proposal subjected to review is fairly given the undivided
> attention of the reviewers, and that feedback from reviews (an essential
> component of the process) is focused on the submission and nothing else.
>
>  I'd like to merge my pull request which puts the review on the website
> calendar. Is there any reason I should not merge my addition to the
> calendar?
>
> Thanks
>
>