Asset Stewardship Review

From: Arnaud Becheler (arnaud.becheler_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-22 22:01:52

I support the C++ Alliance proposal to transfer assets to it and to form a
new Steering Committee.

I have been using Boost for almost a decade now for my science project, and
had some interactions with its community.

   - My first interaction with the Boost mailing list was to evaluate
   whether my small science library might be a suitable proposal. The response
   was pretty clear: no. Boost was seen as too large, and my project too niche
   (plus, I assume there might have been some quality concerns as well). While
   I understood the rationale, it did discourage me from further participation
   in the mailing list. After all, if my project couldn’t be part of Boost,
   what was the point of staying engaged and spammed ? This experience might
   help explain at least one data point in the chart from the Alliance
   proposal, which highlights the mailing list’s decline in participation.

   - On the other hand, I was still actively using Boost and seeking a
   community. I was pleasantly surprised by how welcoming the community was to
   beginners, especially on the Cpplang Slack channel. As a gay person who
   enjoys sprinkling my Slack posts with rainbow kitties, I never felt
   ostracized or discriminated against, nor did I witness any bullying. It
   seems like the community self-regulates quite well, without an apparent
   need for the enforcement mechanisms proposed by the Foundation.

   - More significantly, I only became aware of the Foundation through
   these proposals. I've never had the chance to interact with any of its
   members, except for Peter, which makes me a bit skeptical of their
   motivations. In contrast, members of the C++ Alliance—like Vinnie, Rene,
   and Joaquin—have been consistently accessible and supportive on the Boost
   channel of the Cpplang Slack.
   -

   The quality of the proposal documents is worth noting: the C++
   Alliance’s proposal is highly detailed, well-illustrated, and presents a
   long-term vision that reignited my enthusiasm for the community. In
   contrast, the Foundation’s proposal felt more like a brief but reassuring
   affirmation of the importance of our long-held open-source values, without
   sparking the same level of excitement. Additionally, members of the C++
   Alliance were readily available for real-time discussions and debates about
   their proposal, whereas members of the Foundation were less/not present and
   communicative on the platforms I personally use.
   - I believe in values, principles—and results. I can highlight the
   success of the C++ Alliance with two personal stories. (i) Recently, a
   colleague mentioned that Boost was outdated and irrelevant. I disagreed and
   showed them the new website developed by the C++ Alliance. They quickly
   changed their mind. (ii) Similarly, a colleague who had switched to Rust
   was convinced C++ was obsolete due to well-known C++ vs. Rust issues. They
   even compiled a bullet-point list to persuade others to move away from C++.
   I showed them the C++ Alliance’s Safe C++ initiative in partnership with
   Sean Baxter. After reading it, they came back excited, saying the proposal
   addressed every point on their list and could be a game-changer.
   Unfortunately, I don’t have comparable stories about the Foundation.
   -

   As several reviewers have pointed out, there are shared goals and
   ideologies at the core of the conflict. The community must embrace these
   common values and reinforce the collaborative spirit that Boost was built
   on, ensuring the focus remains on innovation and mutual progress rather
   than division. Continuing down this path of personal conflict only detracts
   from the mission, diluting the collective potential of the project. It’s
   essential that we return to a focus on the project's true
   objectives—technical excellence, inclusivity, and shared success. By
   prioritizing cooperation and mutual respect, we can ensure that Boost
   remains a thriving environment for growth. I personally take home these
   points from the two proposals:
   -

   *Foundation Proposal:*
   - Uphold core values of the open-source community (openness,
      collaboration, inclusivity).
      - Push for immediate inclusivity.
      - Concerned that financial involvement may compromise the project’s
      integrity.
      - Recognizes the importance of not becoming too distanced from the
      community.
      - Move slowly, but surely, and freely.
   -

   *C++ Alliance Proposal:*
   - Leverage funding to handle unappealing yet necessary tasks.
      - Focus on modernizing and appealing to younger developers.
      - Aim to keep the project relevant and attractive to new talent.
      - Want to maintain a close relationship with developers.
      - Move fast and throw money at problems.
   -

   *Conclusion:*
   - Both the C++ Alliance and the Foundation share aligned values but
      focus on different approaches.
      - They are complementary, addressing different aspects of the same
      mission.
      - Their coexistence can provide a balance, acting as counterweights
      to maintain both ethical standards and practical sustainability.
      - Transferring assets to the C++ Alliance would enable them to
      fulfill their part of the mission more quickly. I don't believe it would
      impede the Foundation's ability to achieve their goals.
      - The next question for the community is: how can we support the
      Foundation in return? For example, a reasonably-sized data
science project
      to collect insights on inclusivity and diversity within the
Boost community
      could help them shape future initiatives around the values they
      prioritize, and would benefit the entire community.

Thank you once again for giving us the chance to review these great
documents and visions, and for the hard work from all sides that has
allowed me to develop my little science project while standing on the
towering shoulders of giants ;)
Best,
Arno