Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-21 15:09:02

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 7:39 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>

Someone reached out to me personally saying they were working on another
option, but I heard again from that same person that they are no longer
moving forward with that.

> 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.

We were waiting for one more vote which just came in. That should be sent
out today.

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?
>

I don't understand the confusion. The board wants the Boost project to
decide and they're trying to help facilitate that decision being made.
There's no change in position.

It will be extremely useful to see and compare writeups coming from Vinnie
and Boost foundation leadership. There are clearly two paths, but I want to
see them both described well.

In my opinion, the Boost Foundation in its current form is not a
particularly interesting option for Boost. It needs reforms and I hope
these will be reflected in any proposal the Boost foundation leadership
produces. In particular, I'd like to see 1) a plan for improved
communication, 2) more Boost project involvement in appointments, and 3) a
process for the removal of members not meaningfully contributing.

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.
>

This was my *personal* opinion. Please stop confusing my emails with board
acts.

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.
>

Again, this was an email that I sent out personally, not the board.

-- David