Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins today (3rd Sept)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-22 16:42:31

The following is my review of the Boost Asset Stewardship proposal(s)

> https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf

and

> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFt7Bh71e4_uE0iK4jifhR__P0iG5_c1cDfBsMjrljU/

I've also read the (quite) informative posts

> https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/09/257579.php

and

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/09/257854.php

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the C++ Alliance. I'm on the
board of the Boost Foundation (but probably not for much
longer.)

I think that the Fiscal Sponsorship model is the right fit for us.
We're an international community of developers and as
explained in the above post, serving on the board is more
suited for American citizens, preferably ones with experience.
Boost's assets need to be held by a legal entity, and I can't think
of any better model than having that entity hold the assets _on
behalf of the Boost community, as represented by a group of
respected and trusted developers_, with that relationship being
contractually specified.

Which entity should that be?

Long story short, I vote for the C++ Alliance. While I don't always
see eye to eye with its leadership, and while it's _in theory_
possible to adopt the above model with the Boost Foundation
as the legal asset holder, I've been quite disillusioned by the
trajectory of the Foundation and the above proposal does nothing
to re-illusion me as it basically doubles down.

The Boost Foundation has been steadily drifting away from Boost
and now openly has other things as its primary (and secondary)
focus. And, even though it now has its own project that it can
govern to its heart's content, the ambitions of its leadership to
also govern Boost - without having earned the right to do so -
have not subsided one bit.