Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-20 23:39:24

El 20/08/2024 a las 1:16, Kristen Shaker via Boost escribió:
> 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.

Hi to all,

The situation is becoming more confusing every day. 20 days ago the 
Foundation posted a message (signed by the Board) stating that "we feel 
the most appropriate thing to do at this juncture would be to let the 
developers make a decision on how they would like to proceed regarding 
what level of ownership the C++ Alliance should have on Boost Library 
assets"

Note the phrase "let the developers make a decision".

The Foundation clearly expressed that there are two available options 
(Alliance or Foundation) and a third option was not needed ("given that 
there are already many Boost Developers on the Boost Foundation Board of 
Directors, we don’t see this as a meaningful deviation from the status 
quo").

20 days later members of the Foundation say there will be more options 
because they know at least one additional option is in development. But 
according to the previous logic, this additional option should be a 
"meaningful deviation from the status quo" or it should not be 
considered. But we do not know anything about it and the Foundation or 
its members have not disclosed any information to the developers.

Some days ago we knew that "the Boost Foundation is currently voting on 
a motion to utilize the library review process to decide the governance 
question which includes process suggestions. We should wait until that 
outcome".

But we have no information about this outcome and the board signed the 
original two option proposal. It's at least surprising that the 
Foundation made such a strong decision proposal and 20 days later 
members of the board think that "allowing them to put forward proposals 
is part of facilitating that agency trying". Is that a new position from 
the board or a personal opinion from board members?

Minutes from the Foundation are not updated since June so we don't know 
if there is new information that justifies any new position from the 
board or its members.

Additionally, Foundation board members considered that the decision 
should have "participation from the greater C++ community" and "the 
review manager should take into consideration feedback from all 
sources." which contradict the earlier "let the developers make a 
decision" from the board.

It was announced that the Boost Foundation was having a meeting (past 
Thursday?) about the review process for the governance, but we have no 
information about the decisions taken on that meeting.

This simply is not sustainable. It's not productive.

We already have a trusted review manager (Glen), which is a Foundation 
board member, and a very active Boost developer. We have some initial 
information about the operational perspective both from David 
(https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257346.php) and Vinnie 
(https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257347.php), which must 
be completed before the review.

The review was proposed initially for the next week (pull 
https://github.com/boostorg/website/pull/871/commits/55010d4fdcf87db98332da39b90ab5ada2511c3b). 
So it seems that the C++ Alliance should already have a mature proposal 
(otherwise, C++ Alliance's proposal will be simply rejected).

We also had some clarifications ("Misunderstandings about the Boost 
Foundation", https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257463.php) 
that the Foundation thinks it should be considered from developers 
during this process.

I think it's evident that we have no new information that justifies 
additional delays. If anyone has an interesting proposal in a mature 
state, great, boost developers should know about it just now because 
it's time to decide and move to the next thing.

According to our established review process, the review manager should 
finalize the schedule with the Review Wizard and the submitter. Please 
let Glen, Mateusz and Vinnie agree on that.

I expect the usual 10 days period will be enough so that active boost 
developers (which are the ones the Foundation requested a decision from) 
can emit their opinions. In any case, according to the formal review 
process the review manager can ask the review wizard for permission to 
extend the review schedule if there are too few reviews or some new 
important information must be considered, so the review can be extended 
using the already established process if necessary.

IMO the Foundation or the Alliance should not try to condition this 
developer decision that the same Foundation proposed 20 days ago and the 
Alliance agreed on. That ship has sailed.

The review manager "shall check the submission to make sure it really is 
complete enough to warrant formal review" 
(https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html).

If so, we should schedule the review on the following weeks and take a 
decision with the information we have, as no decision is the worst 
decision. If 6 months later we have newer information that requires a 
new review and a new change, so be it.

Best,

Ion