Re: Asset Stewardship Review

From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-06 17:09:59

On 06/09/2024 16:04, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:
> Disclaimer: Alliance employee
>
> Hi, I'm a little confused at what the Boost Foundation put forth.
>
> The opening review email states:
>> To be clear, the review is not about deciding governance over Boost
>> C++ library development. That remains in the hands of the Boost
>> developer community.
> But TBF's proposal seems entirely to be governance-related.
>
> In terms of asset stewardship, it's kind of a no-brainer to choose the
> organization that _didn't_ almost lose the boost.org domain name. Plus, the
> Alliance has Sam Darwin and he's infallible.
>
> But to the Boost Foundation's credit, I found myself agreeing with a lot of
> the points being mentioned. Boost _should_ consider introducing a formal
> CoC. Boost _should_ officially migrate to CMake and being direct here: this
> does mean completely abandoning b2.

Perhaps ;)

It would be a shame if we got too bogged down on what should or should 
not be in our code of conduct.  We do actually have something pretty 
close here: https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html

As for CMake, from the POV of end user experience we're nearly there 
already.  Whether it should replace our testing infrastructure is 
another matter, I have always found CMake to be rather weak in that 
area, but then I'm very much a non-CMake user so I'm the last person you 
should ask ;)

John.