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

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-18 17:13:47

On 9/18/24 2:15 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> 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.

Right. I question the legitimacy of this process.  Offering this 
(tri)binary choice is a false choice in this instance.  In my view, 
these options don't address the real issues faced by Boost and it's 
Governance.  Glen is free and might be justified in rejecting this 
review as "not a review".  Note that coincidently, we seem to have a 
similar problem in our current presidential election.

> 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.

Actually, I don't understand what the Boost Foundation "alternative" 
actually consists of.

Perhaps you might consider adding one more alternative the list you 
posted above:

* Keep the status quo and modify the bylaws to enhance represenation of 
the Boost Community.

Robert Ramey