Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03 (Updated)

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-18 09:15:04

wt., 17 wrz 2024 o 22:29 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> On 8/30/24 4:10 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> > Update: The Boost Foundation proposal mentioned in the original
> > announcement has been published.
> >
> > The Boost Foundation proposal is attached to this email:
> > BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf
> >
> > A link to the above will also be available in the review commencement
> > email that will be posted on September 3rd.
> >
> > For reference, the review schedule is:
> > https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html
> >
> > The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal:
> > https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf
> >
> > The original announcement email included an attachment of the above:
> > https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257569.php
>
> Here is my review.
>
>  From BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf
>
> "Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal
> To continue carrying out the Alliance vision to revitalize Boost, a
> change in governance is needed. Our proposal is straightforward:
> ● The C++ Alliance becomes the fiscal sponsor for Boost under the terms
> of the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement provided in Appendix 1.
> ● The C++ Alliance receives eligible donations for Boost, or donates
> directly to Boost, and custodies ownership of Boost’s resources which
> currently include domain names, trademarks, and a server.
> ● The Steering Committee determines how resources are used.
> This developers-first approach leverages the useful sponsorship model
> already developed by the Software Freedom Conservancy, and allows the
> C++ Alliance to minimize the risks incurred when making large
> investments in the project."
>
> I recommend rejection of this proposal.
>
> I believe that the best way forward for boost is to reform the current
> Boost Foundation while maintaining it's authority over Boost assets.
>
> "Boost Assets" include but are not the following:
>
> a) Boost.org domain name.
> b) mail/testing servers.
> c) mailing list
> d) Stewardship of C++Now conference and revenues generated there from.
> e) Other assets
>
> Some definitions:
>
> a) Boost Library Foundation
> The Boost Library Foundation is the 501(c)3 non-profit behind the Boost
> C++ Libraries, the C++Now conference, and the Boost C++ Standardization
> Effort.  The current bylaws of the Boost Library Foundation can be found
> here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view
>
> b) C++ Alliance
> Described here: https://cppalliance.org
>
> c) Boost Mission - I've synthesized this from reviewing the original
> boost home page, the boost library foundation home page and C++ alliance
> boost.io page.
>
> Development of high quality, expert reviewed, legally unencumbered,
> open-source libraries advancing and disseminating software development
> best practices.
>
> d) Boost Software
>    * either library code or tool
>    * distributed as C++ code.
>    * subjected to the Boost Formal Review process and accepted under
> Boost rules
>
> e) Boost Assets
>    * boost.org domain name
>    * mailing list
>    * various servers for hosting, test, etc.
>    * boost logo
>    * other assets
>
> f) Boost Community Member
>    * Author of Boost Software
>    * Officially recognized maintainer of Boost Software
>    * Author of documentation of Boost Software
>    * Participant as a reviewer in a Boost Formal Software Review
>    * Speaker at the Boost Conference currently named C++Now
>    * others to be determined
>
> Proposed changes to Boost Library Foundation bylaws. refer to:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view
>
> ARTICLE II
> BOARD OF DIRECTORS
>
> Section 0. Membership. Members of the board of directors shall be
> members of the Boost Community.
>
> Section 1. Powers and Duties. Except as otherwise provided in the
> certificate of incorporation or these bylaws, the Board shall have the
> general power to control and manage the affairs and property of the
> Foundation and shall have full power to adopt rules and regulations
> governing the conduct of the Foundation’s affairs and actions of the
> Board.  The Board shall have the power to control and manage policies
> for acceptance of new Boost Software and the usage and maintenance thereof.
>
> Section 3. Election and Tenure. The members of the Board of Directors
> shall be elected by Boost Community Members. ...
>
> Other changes to made as necessary to be consistent with the above.
>
> Note: I don't see anything in here which would support projects like the
> Beman project as part of Boost.  So any formal connection between Boost
> Foundation and Beman Project should be severed.
>
> As can be seen, the intention here is to place the ultimate authority
> over boost in the hands of Boost Community Members who have actually
> invested personal efforts into the growth and success of boost.  Once
> these changes to bylaws are implemented and a new Board of Directors is
> elected other issues can be addressed.  I don't intend to discuss any of
> these issues here other than to mention them to give a better idea of
> how I expect Boost to function with the above changes.
>
> a) replacement of traditional Boost Discussion Policy with a "Code of
> Conduct"
>
> b) assignment of responsibility for administration of Boost to external
> parts such as C++ Alliance and/or perhaps others.
>
> c) implementation of policies requiring the formal review of all Boost
> Software and procedures.  Currently, much of boost is
> maintained/developed/deployed on personal initiative of boost community
> members without restraint and/or responsibility of the Boost Foundation
> Board of Directors. I would hope that the new board would define
> procedures which would subject these kinds of procedures to more formal
> review by the general membership.  Specifically, I see opportunities for
> improvement in procedures for building/testing/deployment of Boost
> Software and I would like to see big improvements in this area.  As far
> as I know, this is the only proposal which will provide a means to
> permit this to happen.
>
> d) I would hope that by "resetting" the board of directors with a new
> constituency, mission and authority would result in the crafting of a
> new framework which would make it possible to delegate some of the
> effort to managing boost to the C++ Alliance.  I would also hope that by
> guaranteeing that recognition and some authority to boost authors and
> maintainers, we might make it more attractive for more volunteers -
> particularly boost library maintainers.
>
> The original proposal presented a simple binary option.  (paraphrasing)
> Hand over assets to C++ Alliance or ... (do nothing?).
>

You are proposing modifications -- which I admit I do not fully understand
-- but, the way I understand the process here, I think they are immaterial
to the outcome of this review.

The only possible outcomes of this review could be:
* Modify the status quo by accepting the Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal.
* Modify the status quo by accepting the Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal with
modifications suggested during the review.
* Keep the status quo.

While the Boost Foundation asks the Boost developer community to consider
their "alternative", I understand that the outcome of this review can in no
way oblige the Boost Foundation to implement their alternative.

Regards,
&rzej;