Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-21 11:32:01

> 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.
>
Thank you Ion, this is very well written, and sums up the situation 
nicely.  I wholeheartedly agree.  We need to move along with the this.

John.