Re: The Future of Boost Governance

From: Kristen Shaker (kristen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-12 17:33:53

Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for contributing your thoughts to the discussion.

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.

The following are my personal opinions.

This was my ideal outcome when I took over as chair and initiated a channel
of communication with C++ Alliance leadership. I genuinely thought we had
made progress toward collaborating effectively. The attempted acquisition
of the domain name seemed (and was confirmed verbally by leadership) to be
a direct attempt to permanently circumvent the board. I understand that
there was some acrimony between members of the Alliance and the Foundation
before I took over as chair. However, I am generally a collaborative person
(I do genuinely think a lot of disagreements come down to
miscommunications), and I believed, perhaps naively, that we could move
past our issues and make forward progress together.

I'd like to acknowledge that in all personal interactions with me, Alliance
leadership has been respectful and friendly. However, as chair of an
organization, I have to put personal relationships aside and attempt to do
what I feel is best for the organization as a whole. An organization cannot
have two steering bodies, one of which does not want to work
collaboratively with the other. There will be a continuous stream of issues
that the community will inevitably pulled into.  I have reservations about
the Alliance's stewardship capabilities. However, a constant stream of
infighting is no way for a community to function. If the community were to
resoundly tell the Alliance that collaborating openly with the Board of
Directors is their preferred approach AND the Alliance were to agree to
that state of affairs, perhaps there would be a way forward. I do not
personally see that as being something Alliance leadership would be
amenable to.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:04 PM Dave Abrahams via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>