Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-12 22:23:21

czw., 12 wrz 2024 o 19:08 Kristen Shaker via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> >
> > #1
> > > The Boost Foundation proposal states that "...success in today’s
> society
> > requires a strong and enforced Code of Conduct."  It goes on to propose
> > that the incorporation and enforcement of a strong code of conduct will
> > "increase engagement and trust within Boost."
> > > Q. Which Code of Conduct does the Boost Foundation believe is best for
> > Boost, is it this one:
> > https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/docs/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
> ?
> >
>
> That's a good one, but there are others.
>
>
> > > Q. What specific problems does the Code of Conduct intend to solve
> > (perhaps with examples)?
> >
>
> A code of conduct does nothing without enforcement, but the combination of
> the two will help solve problems.
>
> Several very strong and capable engineers have approached the Boost
> Foundation saying they will not participate in Boost without an enforced
> code of conduct. Some do this on general principle, and others because they
> actively don't feel comfortable participating in Boost spaces as they are
> currently run.
>
> There have been many studies showing uncivil workplace behavior causes poor
> performance, attrition, and reputational damage. There is every reason to
> believe this carries over to online communities as well.
>

In a similar vein, the Foundation's counter-proposal proposes:

Make an active effort to improve behavior on the mailing list

In order to help me understand this, could you give some examples of the
behavior on the mailing list that you feel is in need of improvement?
The above characterization is so different from my many-year experience
with the list.

Regards,
&rzej;

>
> > Q. How does engagement generally increase when incorporating an enforced
> > Code of Conduct?
> >
>
> In Boost's case, this would take a while. Trust needs to be built up in the
> process and when people feel safe enough, they'll start joining in.
>
>
> > > Q. If there are potential volunteers waiting for a Code of Conduct to
> > begin contributing, what specifically is holding them back from
> > contributing now?
> >
>
> As mentioned above, there are folks who don't want to subject themselves to
> what they perceive to be an uncivil environment. A code of conduct is
> necessary, but not sufficient to convince these people that Boost will be a
> welcoming and emotionally healthy place to participate in. I'd like to echo
> Zach's point here. If outside individuals deem the community to be
> unwelcoming, it doesn't serve anyone to have a debate about whether they
> should be "thicker skinned." People who feel unwelcome will not
> participate.
>
>
> > > Q. What is the meaning of "trust" in the context of the proposal?
> > > Q. What problems does the current level of "trust within Boost" bring,
> > and how does a Code of Conduct solve them?
> >
>
> An enforced code of conduct would show individuals who have historically
> felt that Boost is an unwelcoming environment that it is starting to trend
> positively towards being more welcoming. This, over time, will increase
> engagement and encourage outside participation in the community.
>
>
> > #2
> > > Given that we just released Boost 1.86.0 a couple of weeks ago: Why
> > aren't Boost release announcements being posted to X at
> > https://x.com/Boost_Libraries ?
> >
>
> No one from the Boost community has offered wording for a post. The board
> is more than happy to make posts upon request.
>
>
> > #3
> > > If the community accepts the Boost Foundation's proposal as currently
> > written, would the Code of Conduct you institute prevent someone like
> > Arthur O'Dwyer from participating on the mailing lists?
> >
>
> The code of conduct has no provisions for proactively banning anyone. It is
> a process whereby someone can raise a concern to the code of conduct team,
> an investigation will be done, and a decision will be made.
>
> > #4
> > > Is it possible to rename a 501(c)(3) non-profit? Would the Boost
> > Foundation consider renaming?
> >
>
> Yes, it is possible, and yes it is something we would consider.
>
>
> > #5 (several along the same lines)
> > > What is the status of the domain transfer?
> >
>
> I believe I covered this in an earlier email. It's happening. It will just
> take time.
>
>
> > > What is the risk the transfer is not possible and the domain will lapse
> > and go to auction? Is there a signed agreement in place?
> >
>
> Low risk. Yes, there is a signed agreement in place.
>
>
> > #6 (several about the Beman project)
> > > What is the breakdown of funding the Boost Foundation gives to the
> Beman
> > project vs the Boost libraries?
> >
>
> Discounting Boost Foundation donations earmarked for the Beman project, the
> ratio of spending on the Boost project vs. the Beman project is 284:1.
>
>
> > > Does the Boost Foundation steer policy in the Beman project or just pay
> > the bills like it does for Boost?
> >
>
> The Boost Foundation is responsible for breaking community deadlock for the
> Boost project, but it does not do this for the Beman project. For the Beman
> project, it pays a small amount towards operating expenses.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Kristen
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 9:10 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 6:04 AM Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > If one feels one got a green light from LEWG that one's
> > > library will be accepted into STD, the motivation for putting it into
> > Boost
> > > diminishes. Here, I do not think we will be able to do much.
> >
> > Inbal Levi is a member of the Boost Foundation Board of Directors. She
> > is also the chair of LEWG. Every library-only proposal for C++
> > (including std::execution) must go through LEWG first. LEWG could
> > simply adopt as a policy, that any library-only proposal must already
> > be published as a library, for a minimum period of time, and having
> > acquired users and integration in other public projects. This doesn't
> > mean it has to be accepted into Boost first, although that is an
> > option.
> >
> > The "green light from LEWG" could be changed to a red light. My
> > personal opinion is that if the only thing that LEWG did was to reject
> > all pure library proposals for ten years, C++ would be improved.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>