Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-16 13:31:13

pt., 13 wrz 2024 o 00:23 Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

>
>
> 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.
>

I note that I still expect the Boost Foundation representatives to respond
to the above request.

Regards,
&rzej;

> 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
>>
>