The Future of Boost Governance

From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-12 17:04:09

I'm writing to represent the spirit in which Boost was founded and in which we ran it, as a community, up until 2013.

I realize the review is nominally about asset stewardship, but IIUC the more fundamental change being discussed is about governance, not who holds Boost's property.

Before I moved on to other things, I participated in setting up a steering committee that was supposed to step in and make important decisions when Boost's default "community-based leadership and decision making" process got stuck or was otherwise inadequate.   That body, I gather, evolved into the Foundation board.  For some purposes, that governance structure has worked, but when it comes to managing Boost's assets, it seems the ball was dropped, and the Foundation did not self-correct.  Therefore, I very much understand why one might want to transfer Boost governance to an organization with more apparent energy.

All that said I am deeply concerned about recent actions by the C++ Alliance.  Please correct me if I'm misinformed about any of this, because as I've said I've been out of the loop.  
It is my understanding that the Alliance did not communicate to the Foundation or publicize its efforts to gain control of the boost.org <http://boost.org/> domain name. Effective or not, the Foundation is the nominal governing body for Boost, and coordination with the Foundation would have been the appropriate, aboveboard course to take.  
It is my understanding that despite an agreement to coordinate the launch of a new Boost website with the Foundation board, the Alliance decided to launch boost.io <http://boost.io/> in parallel with boost.org <http://boost.org/>. That move is problematic for all the same reasons.  It also creates confusion for the user community about where the real Boost is.
These aggressive and unilateral actions seem to be at odds with the spirit of Boost and to be harmful to the coherence of its community.  
IMO it's very much to the Foundation's credit that they did not respond in kind, but instead opened a discussion about Boost's future governance and offered to abide by the community's decision.  That is what I'd expect from a group that truly had Boost's interests at heart. All that is great but it does seem very wrong that the conversation should be prompted by actions like the above, and for me, any outcome that transfers Boost governance to the instigators of those actions compounds the problem.

It saddens me greatly that a rift exists between the Alliance and the Foundation, because the energy and commitment of the Alliance members is admirable, and communication here on the mailing list looks like it has been productive.  My ideal outcome would be to repair whatever is needed to make the Foundation work as a governing body, and to repair the relationships so that Alliance members can continue to make great technical contributions without feeling like the Foundation is holding up their progress.  I'm sure that would be asking a great deal of the participants on both sides, but that's what I'd like.  It seems to me any correctives that would result from a governance transition could equally well be applied to the Foundation itself.

- Dave