Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins today (3rd Sept)

From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemensdavidmorgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-08 15:42:30

> In your review do disclose any affiliation to either the C++ Alliance
> or Boost Foundation groups. Please state any connection you have to
> Boost (developer, user, package manager etc.)
>

I was a staff engineer for the C++ Alliance for over a year until the
end of 2023.
I've been a boost developer since process has been approved in November of 2016.

This is my review:

Since we're not reviewing a software library and thus no
implementation is available,
I think past experiences also can be taken into account as a basis of
future expectations.

The standard review question also doesn't help a lot here either, so
I'll use my own for readability.

What is your evaluation of the proposal?
What is your expectation of its implementation?
What is your expectation regarding the usefulness of the proposed changes?

I'll be denoting the C++ (A)lliance as (A) and the (B)oost foundation as (B).

# What is your evaluation of the proposal?

A) The alliance proposal shows great understanding of what makes boost
great and different.
It also analyses the current state and problems of boost quite
accurately and outlines a well thought out solution & vision.
I especially appreciate the clear agreement that does give a workable
governance structure based on an established model
(the Software Freedom Conservancy) and includes a way to move on
without the C++ Alliance. That is Boost is not locked-in
with the C++ Alliance. That means it's neither owned nor controlled
directly by the C++ Alliance.

B) The Boost Foundation's proposal doesn't show a deep understanding
of Boost. The review process is mentioned as a sidenote,
the license isn't. There is little boost specific.

I also have a hard time taking its values seriously, as I have not
experienced any transparency,
consensus building or honoring the governance process.
The whole drama with the website mainly consisted of the Boost foundation
ignoring the majority opinion, trying to manipulate the governance
process of boost and being utterly intransparent
of what happened behind the scenes. The latter usually consisted of
public response to private emails.

The Boost Foundation is made up by volunteers, so I guess that is true.

The actual proposals ("What we propose") also are odd to me:

1. The Boost Foundation represents boost? According to whom?
I don't think there even is an agreement between the Boost Developer
Community and the Boost Foundation.
If anything the Boost foundation is supposed to be the benefactor of
Boost, not it's owner.
2. How do the two points build community? Policing discussion usually
has the opposite effect.
3. We are migrating to CMake? I thought this additional support. Why
does a proposal include "consider"? That is just vague and
non-binding.
4. That just sounds like a power-grab.
This is because defining the roles will mean it will be the Boost
Foundation defining the roles and creating the succession plans.
It will be the Boost Foundation deciding who needs to be replaced
because they don't perform well.
It will be the Boost Foundation administering the "keys to the
kingdom", e.g. the boostorg github organization, which they currently
don't.
We as developers might be able to nominate someone, but we sure won't
elect them. That will be the Boost Foundation's doing.

It would mainly give the Boost Foundation all the control over Boost,
including the ability kick library authors they don't like from their
own repositories.

Additionally, there is no agreement between the developers and the
foundation here.
It's vague and gives the Boost Foundation carte blanche to treat boost
authors like employees.

# What is your expectation of it's implementation?

A) If the agreement with the C++ Alliance is signed we have a legal
document with obligation.
I don't think a non-profit would mess around with that, so I believe
it would be implemented.

B) Based on my reading of the proposal of the Boost Foundation
I think they'll implement their ideas and will try to control boost
developers and their speech.
If it's implemented the way it reads to me I might not be a boost
author anymore.

On the other hand, there is no legal obligation by the boost foundation here.
They could just raise funds and invest in the Beman Project instead.

# What is your expecation regarding the usefulness of the proposed changes?

A) This proposal would at the very, very least keep the lights on.
It would most likely end the stagnation of boost on the infrastructure
side (e.g. new website).
The C++ Alliance has proven their willingness & ability to do that with drone.

It is also quite possible that new steering committee will actually be
able to steer boost,
if it is made up by developers. This would overcome issues in boost,
because instead of commanding from on-high to migrate to CMake, the
developers would first put in the work
to build consensus (by building the thing) before announcing move. It
looks to me like this has succeeded with
CMake thanks to Peter and is in the works for a modularization by Rene.

I see no downside here if the agreement is signed & honored. I have no
reason to doubt that this will be the case.

B) All this proposal will do is give the Boost Foundation dictatorial
control over Boost.
Since they've been busy blocking any non-library effort (like the new
website) unless they can take credit,
I am sure it would be the certain death of boost.

I vote to ACCEPT the proposal of the C++ Alliance.