- Boost - lists.boost.org

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from René
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 18 Sep '24

18 Sep '24

== Distractions: Before I get to the meat of the review I need to point out that I will not talk about: if Boost needs a new website, whether Boost needs to be revitalized, if policing communications in Boost is a good idea or not, if Boost is relevant any longer, what build system Boost should use, what documentation system Boost should use, if Boost is attractive, if some other project is the new-old Boost, if Discord is better than email. All of those, and more, are distractions to the key questions that we are deciding on: * Who should manage the assets that sustain the development of Boost Libraries? * Who should decide how those assets are managed? == Disclosure, Present Seeing as the C++ Alliance proposal lists me as one of the initial members of a new Committee I thought I'd include additional biographical background for those that may not be aware of what I've done, and do, both in the foreground and background of programming. In case some are not aware I wear many hats in my life. And some of them intersect with the Boost community. Because of the kind of work that I've traditionally done, and still do, in game development and contracting in that domain I have learned to compartmentalize facets of my life. And how to reorient my thinking to each facet as needed. Below is a very brief exposition of current and past involvement arenas. *Chicago Developer Development NFP* I currently serve as a member of the board of the Chicago Developer Development NFP. This is a non-profit that manages the finances of the Chicago C/C++ User Group. Although the non-profit is very new, the user group has been around for almost as long as Boost. And I've helped manage it for just about as long. *Disbelief LLC* My day job for Disbelief is now at about 9.5 years doing AAA game development consulting. Mainly doing Unreal Engine systems and graphics programming. The one intersection with Boost here is that we happen to use Boost in an internal project. And Boost is used in the internals of Unreal Engine (at one point it had at least 4 different copies of Boost in it at once). *C++ Alliance* I currently serve as a member of the board of the C++ Alliance and hold the position of Secretary. As mentioned in the C++ Alliance proposal my duties include advising on the non-profit operation and alignment of initiatives with the goal of advancing the C++ ecosystem. My experience in Boost and running various nonprofits and for-profit corporations is particularly useful. The C++ Alliance also makes it possible for me to participate in WG21 where much of my time has been spent in C++ tooling and the standardization of tool interop. *Boost C++ Libraries* I currently maintain Predef and B2. I am currently working to make the B2 build support in Boost allow for modular usage. With the hope of making it easier to support package managers and the desire from some users to depend on just the Boost libraries they need. In the past I created the current Boost website, which is the second iteration. I provide advice on the development of the new website. I provide advice on the packaging of Boost for Conan. I maintain the B2 Conan package which is separate from the Boost Conan package. In the past I've also served as Boost Documentation Manager during which I helped maintain Quickbook. I also served as Boost Release Manager during which I automated much of the labor using cloud CI. I also served as Boost Testing Manager during which I tried, but failed, to improve the global test matrix but at least kept it running. And long ago I minimally helped to start BoostCon. *Bincrafters* Bincrafters is a group that got started at the early stages of the Conan package manager. We created many packages for libraries of all sorts. I joined at its foundation to do one main task, to create the first modular set of Boost packages. Although that modular Boost packaged release is no longer available it taught me many lessons that I applied to the current modular B2 building. That effort also provided the conceptual model for the current modular vcpkg Boost packages. Currently the group does minimal support of some existing packages. But otherwise we've ported most of the packages we created to the public Conan Index. Of particular relevance is that we organized using the Open Source Collective as a Fiscal Sponsor (https://opencollective.com/bincrafters) == Disclosure, Past As the past is an indicator of the future I thought it important to also include some of the related organizations I've been part of before now. *Redshift Software* I was President of a software development S-Corp that did all kinds of contracting projects during the 16.5 years it operated. We did everything from tools, games, and web sites. It was during the early days here that our need for a build system for the version control system we developed came from and how I came to find Boost. We went on to use Boost heavily during that time. Which necessitated myself fixing bugs across many of the Boost libraries. This is also where I taught myself how to run a corporation, by reading Illinois corporate law books and IRS rules. *Couchworld Games* I was also President of this game development C-corp (minor note, I was "volunteered" for the position in this one and in Redshift). Even though this corp got created to develop some AAA games, we ended up creating some iPhone puzzle games in C++. Which was a rather hard endeavor given the iPhone ecosystem in the early days. And, yes, we used Boost and B2 in the engines we developed for those games. *BoostPro Computing* BoostPro was a consulting company started by Dave Abrahams to support Boost developers by having clients pay for the technical support of their use of Boost and general development for the clients. Some of that work ended up as new Boost libraries. I worked, as a subcontractor, for 3 years alongside Dave, Eric Neibler, and Joel de Guzman. In summary, I've been involved in most aspects of Boost for more than 22 years. == Executive Committee: When I say "Executive Committee" I'm referring to a group that performs actions on behalf of a group. In this case I'm avoiding the "Steering Committee" term as it appears to have additional connotations because of the past use in Boost. I think it's important that I explain what I think how a group (like an Executive Committee but applies to any group claiming an equivalent role) representing Boost developers should operate. For an Executive Committee it is paramount to gain and maintain the trust of the developers. To achieve that, decisions need to have the support of the developers. Actions by an Executive Committee should not come as a surprise to developers. >From the beginning of my interactions in Boost I learned one key fact.. Progress got made by those that acted and obtained buy-in from the Boost developer community. Of the various achievements Boost created early on, the one that made it possible to get such buy-in, has been the community review process. It is a bottom up process that is designed to remove doubt from the ethos of Boost. It is the community review process that we are using now to clarify how Boost moves forward, and hopefully upward. It should be the process that we follow for Boost developers to make decisions about the assets that sustain Boost development. And it should be the results of such a process that the group representing Boost developers accept as binding to make further decisions. I am hopeful that the machinations we are currently following will become the norm. Some have mentioned concerns about conflicts of interest in our governance moving forward. Irrespective of my current inclusion in the proposed composition of the Committee by the Alliance, it is my hope that any future Committee will adopt policies that uses the Boost Community Review process to drive decisions. Any actions the Committee makes, including, but not limited to, its future composition, should have community consensus by the time the Committee votes. It is the only fair, open, and clear way to make decisions. == Inclusivity: As this topic has been mentioned a couple of times I feel like I need to explain my philosophy on this and some related context. I believe that a varied set of ideas and understanding is essential to any life endeavor. As such I believe that keeping doors open to conversation is key in understanding and inclusion. Even though I think that words are important, I place actions above rhetoric. In other words, I think being a decent person is more important than telling others how they should be decent. My philosophy likely stems from learning to live with conflicts in my life. I became an immigrant to the US when I was a teenager. I'm also not an immigrant because I was born in Puerto Rico with US citizenship. English is not my native language. But I am also more fluent in English than my native Spanish. I am a straight man in a field (game development programming) dominated by straight men. I am also Hispanic in a field where they are an underpaid minority. Part of my ancestry is European and originates in Mallorca, Spain and further back in Catalonia. Another part of my ancestry is Native American of the Caribbean Taino Civilization. Even though I came to Boost searching for a build system, that is not what kept me in Boost. And it was not racial, language, biological (I say that one from the perspective of having a name that is often confused as female in the US), theological, or cultural inclusivity that kept me in Boost. It was intellectual inclusivity that has kept me here for more than 2 decades. It was, and in my opinion still is, a community where I can expect an honest consideration and assessment of technical ideas. == Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes. I have managed for-profit companies. I have helped, and currently help, to manage non-profit companies. I am versed in managing organization assets of those companies. == Proposals: Given all that preamble, below is my review of each proposal. Foundation:: I found this proposal spent most of its wording explaining the ethos it aims to operate within. It is helpful to get that detailed exposition as it has been something that has been missing from the Foundation (and the SC before it) for a long time. What I see in that exposition though is in dissonance with my experience. The mentioned transparency is limited in time, the past two years publishing minutes, and scope, process on how decisions like board membership are made have been lacking. Consensus building is mentioned as a core aspect. But it is unclear how the consensus process is achieved for Foundation decisions that impact Boost. The items mentioned as the actionable parts of this proposal are "Community building", "Improve relevance", and "Adopt governance best practices". Of those, the one that enumerates some steps that apply to the stewardship of Boost assets is the last one. The first three items, as far as I understand, apply to how Boost developers operate and make decisions as envisioned by the Foundation. The fourth and last items pertain to how the Foundation intends to improve its composition with, I can only assume, the intent to increase participation from Boost developers. The fifth item is the only one that directly addresses the aspect of managing Boost assets. Outlining how the Foundation would take control, and possibly ownership, of assets. But it doesn't mention which assets. Is the library source an asset in this model? Who decides which assets? What this proposal lacks throughout is consideration for accountability to Boost developers wishes. While placing all control in the Foundation. This is an arrangement that would require the utmost trust in the Foundation by Boost developers. And given past history I don't see evidence of such a level of trust being merited. Alliance:: The background of the proposal is thoroughly researched and explained in detail. Although there is a fair amount of background information in the proposal I think it can be summarized as "it gives Boost developers control over Boost assets through a Steering Committee". And although this specific proposal is for the Alliance to be the Fiscal Sponsor that is, as we like saying, "an implementation detail". As the control of what happens with the assets goes to the Committee who represents the Boost developers. The proposed Transition Plan recognizes the roles of the various parties and does a good job of remunerating the parties for the work in the transition. The operation of such a Committee and the Agreement match what I know of the requirements for managing non-profit assets. == Conclusion: I support the C++ Alliance proposal to transfer assets to it and to form a new Steering Committee. There are various details to be worked out if the proposal is accepted by the Boost community. For example, the name of the Committee, its final composition, a final contract, and so on. But that's expected, and natural to achieve a structure that the Boost community can grow with. Thank you for reading this far, René

2 1

[cmake] Define CMAKE_PROJECT_VERSION for standalone subprojects
by Lucas Colley 18 Sep '24

18 Sep '24

Dear boost developers, Subprojects like `math` define CMAKE_PROJECT_VERSION in terms of BOOST_SUPERPROJECT_VERSION via: ``` project(boost_math VERSION "${BOOST_SUPERPROJECT_VERSION}" LANGUAGES CXX) ``` This is clearly handy to save a few seconds in the release process, but it means that if one wants to use the subproject standalone (where BOOST_SUPERPROJECT_VERSION is undefined), CMAKE_PROJECT_VERSION is also undefined. This is a problem for me as I am trying to make boost_math a Meson-CMake subproject of SciPy. This would enable us to un-vendor boost_math from SciPy, such that a distro can instead use SciPy with boost_math as a system library. We would only fall back to embedding the boost_math source when it is not installed as a system library. When the boost_math source is embedded, CMAKE_PROJECT_VERSION is parsed to check that we have the correct version to work with SciPy, but we get an error that the version is undefined. This could be solved by defining the version directly in the math subproject instead of in terms of BOOST_SUPERPROJECT_VERSION. The alternative solution of embedding the entire boost source is not suitable for us, since all we need is math. Would it be possible to switch to defining CMAKE_PROJECT_VERSION directly in subprojects? Or is there a more compelling reason to define it in terms of BOOST_SUPERPROJECT_VERSION? Cheers, Lucas — For context: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/pull/11730#issuecomment-2351619977, https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/21270

3 3

Re: [boost] proposal Multi multidimensional array library
by Andrzej Krzemienski 18 Sep '24

18 Sep '24

śr., 26 kwi 2023 o 23:38 Alfredo Correa via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> napisał(a): > Hi all, > > My name is Alfredo. > I would like to propose this library called Multi for inclusion in Boost. > Multi is a container and views library for (dynamic) multidimensional > arrays. > > The library is available here, > https://gitlab.com/correaa/boost-multi. > > The Boost prefix is purely aspirational at this point, of course. > As I understand the process, the important step at this point is to > find someone(s) to endorse the library and later a review manager. > If you want to be an endorser, please let me know. > > If anyone has feedback or tips to prepare it for a review, please let me > know as well. > I will be at the Aspen CPPNOW conference if someone wants to discuss it in > person. > I am in the C++ Slack channel #boost for discussions as well. > > Here is a link to try it quickly online https://godbolt.org/z/KerbxW6WK. > Hi Alfredo, Thank you for sharing your library. This has been more than a year now, and I am sorry for the delayed response. Thank you for reminding us of it in the slack channel. From this, I gather that the game is still afoot. Recently, it was pointed out in this Mailing List, that it is unfair with respect to the authors to give critical feedback without having studied the proposal, yet I am about to do exactly this. I have only read the introductory part of the docs, as well as the "Comparison with other array libraries" appendix, and my feedback is solely based on that. But you can consider me a good representative of a potential user of the library, who is impatient, and can offer only 5-10 minutes to decide if they want to invest more time in studying the library. This is in the spirit of Roert Ramey's advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACeNgqBKL7E&ab_channel=CppCon I personally never needed to manipulate big multidimensional arrays, so I cannot immediately appreciate the usefulness of the library. I need a good introductory part. When I read the high-level description, I immediately think, "it is the same as std::mdspan". The docs say that it is different from the std::mdspan, but then I think, "no, it is the same as std::mdspan". >From the comparison table, I gather that Multi offers both the container and the views (sort of references), and that std::mdspan is only a view. Am I right? The docs say that Multi provides value semantics, but I guess it is not a fair statement. I guess (and correct me if I got this wrong) that the container is value-semantic, but the views are not. That is the nature of the views, that you want them *not* to have value semantics. A fair comparison, should compare Multi's views to std::mdspan. Now, the Standard library has also a proposal in flight to add a container for multi-dimensional arrays: std::mdarray: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p1684r2.html Could you also include it in your comparison? And I would expect that std::mdspan and std::mdarray are treated as one in this case. I read that Multi's types have an STL-compatible interface (range). But this is far from obvious what it means in the context of multi-dimensional arrays. The range/iterator interface was tailored for one-dimensional data structures. There is no obvious generalization to multiple dimensions. I wouldn't even expect a multi-dimensional array to give me an STL interface (whatever that means). Maybe, you mean that the library offers a view where you can see the entire multidimensional array as a long string of values? This would make sense, but if it is the case, I expect the introduction to say exactly this. In the case of std::mdspan, it has been said that it has been tailored to efficiently represent both huge datasets as well as tiny 4x4 matrices. I am not sure if this is the case, but I request that the docs for Multi say what use case they have been designed and optimized for. Does the library only represent dense matrices, or can it also represent sparse data? The term "stride-based". It is not clear to me what it means. I cannot see from the introduction if this library will throw exceptions. The comparison between Multi and std::mdspan in the row "const-propagation semantics" is unfair. I guess you are comparing Multi's container with a view. A view is not expected to propagate constness. So this is the very initial feedback, I hope it helps. Regards, &rzej;

4 5

[Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project
by Andrzej Krzemienski 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

Hi Everyone, The review hasn't started yet, but I think there is no harm in starting the discussion earlier. The Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal from C++ Alliance has the following statement. At the C++Now conference in 2024, the Foundation launched a competing > library collection called the Beman Project, describing it as “a new > initiative separate from Boost that gets back to its original purpose of > improvements to the standard library.” Could perhaps directors of the Boost Foundation comment on their affiliation with the Beman Project? The reason I ask is that my perception of the Beman project, given the scarce information about it online, and the observation that C++ proposal authors prefer to avoid Boost, is "Boost doesn't work, let's start something new". Regards, &rzej;

24 56

Safe C++ and Boost
by Vinnie Falco 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

Hi. I am proud to announce that the C++ Alliance has entered into a partnership with Sean Baxter to develop Safe C++: language extensions to provide memory safety in C++. Some of you might have seen the official announcements on various social media sites, and I’m here to provide some more information on how this initiative affects Boost. First, I want to express my appreciation for Sean’s enormous technical abilities, and for his stamina to invest eight years of research and development into Safe C++. I believe that his efforts reflect good philosophical principles for improving the language with memory safety extensions: 1. Safe C++ must be a superset of C++: all existing code must work. 2. Safe C++ must allow controlled opt-in to memory safety: expecting the world to rewrite everything in a new language is not realistic. 3. Safe C++ must be developed using an implementation-first approach: a working model is preferable to just ideas. The partnership with Alliance has three deliverables: research the remaining design problems, complete the Safe C++ Language Extensions proposal for standardization, and implement the Safe C++ Standard Library. The safe library is a set of additions to the standard library providing essential vocabulary types and algorithms needed by users to achieve memory safety. We don’t know that Safe C++ is the final solution for memory safety in C++. Perhaps the required extensions will be so intrusive as to make it effectively a new language. Maybe the language features which allow for zero-cost abstractions are so powerful that they can’t be preserved in ways that are memory safe. Yet there is value in pioneering this design space that Sean has carved out. It is also possible that Safe C++ becomes the winning memory safety story for C++. We at the Alliance believe it is worth taking the chance to find out. Through the relationship with Alliance, the Boost community has a unique opportunity to participate in helping to explore and solve the remaining difficult design problems, and a front-row seat to the latest draft of the Safe C++ proposal which can be viewed here: https://safecpp.org/draft.html If you would like to discuss Safe C++ in real time with other engineers please join the #safe-cpp channel in the Official C++ Language Slack Workspace by signing up here: https://cppalliance.org/slack What does this mean for Boost? There is a tremendous opportunity here for Boost to innovate ahead of the C++ Standard. I envision the scenario where some volunteers will port selected Boost libraries to Safe C++ as a proof of concept. The porting process will surface areas of the proposal which need work. As memory safety is rapidly becoming the defining feature of modern mission-critical software development, the opportunity for Boost to lead in this area may attract the needed revitalization of the project in the form of new volunteers. Please join us in helping to define this exciting chapter of the C++ language! Thanks

5 8

Boost Asset Stewardship Review
by hans.dembinski＠gmail.com 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

I vote to accept the proposal of the Boost Foundation. I am neither affiliated with the C++ Alliance nor with the Boost Foundation. I am the developer of the Histogram library, which sees a lot of use in the scientific community. My personal values are aligned with the Boost Foundation and its supporters. My observation is that the C++ Alliance uses money to gain influence over this community, for example, by paying some community members to work on projects, and through its donations into the infrastructure. I want Boost to be a non-hierarchical community based on volunteer work, inclusivity, transparency, and consensus. The community is developing away from this ideal, as the C++ Alliance has taken an increasingly dominant role. While my decision here may not change that trend, I cannot support a proposal which would further increases their influence. Hans

3 2

On how to write good documentaiton and why
by Andrzej Krzemienski 16 Sep '24

16 Sep '24

Hi Everyone, While reviewing a Boost candidate library, I re-watched Robert Ramey's advice on how to write library documentation, from CppCon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACeNgqBKL7E&ab_channel=CppCon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxmdCxX9dMk&ab_channel=CppCon These are so great talks, and so much practical, wise and appealing advice. Whenever my colleagues ask me for advice on how to write documentation, I give them these links. I also follow the advice ever since I watched the first video. Robert, thank you for them. I believe that this is a valuable Boost asset, and should be listed along the Boost Software License and the Boost Review Process. I hope that our documentation (old or new) will mention it in a prominent place, much like the docs mention the great article "Exception-Safety in Generic Components" by Dave abrahams. Regards, &rzej;

1 0

Page on the website clarifying Export Status
by Glen Fernandes 15 Sep '24

15 Sep '24

Every now and then (most recently, two days ago), I get a question asking if we have an ECCN in compliance with US export control laws. ECCN is an Export Control Classification Number. (More details at the Bureau of Industry and Security website : http://www.bis.doc.gov/ for anyone interested). We fall under "Not Controlled", so we do not have such a number. (Ion, as a heads up, you will probably start getting these kinds of questions now too). We should probably put this somewhere on our website. FAQ or a page on itself. Any concerns or comments? Glen

1 0

[Asset Stewardship] Andrzej's review
by Andrzej Krzemienski 15 Sep '24

15 Sep '24

Hi Everyone, This is another review in the context of the Boost Asset Stewardship proposal(s). I am not affiliated with either the C++ Alliance or the Boost Foundation, although in the past I talked with the Alliance about the potential compensation for my contributions to Boost, and I represented the Alliance in one WG21 meeting, in Rapperswil. I maintain Boost.Optional library, try to contribute to all Boost reviews, and have managed the review of Boost.SafeNumerics library. I consider myself a Boost Developer. The subject of the review is, which legal organization formally owns the Project's assets, and who actually manages them. But the questions I, as many others, am trying to answer is: * What is going to be the shape and the popularity of Boost libraries? * Where will the funding come from? * What will the Boost community look like? * To what extent will the Boost community be in control of things? The tricky part is that the goal of the Boost Foundation in the past, as well as the future goal of whoever will manage the Boost assets is so that the developers can focus on the development, and need not study the administrative and financial stuff. Yet it is the developers that need to make the decision regarding the administrative and financial stuff now. One thing that I didn't have to pay attention to in the past, and now is becoming clear to me, is that in order to be able to host a host of libraries, test them continuously, improve the infrastructure tools, and build new tools (like the one for documentation), costs huge amounts of money (by my standards). It is my understanding that this cost has been primarily covered by the C++ Alliance. But it is also my understanding that this happened under the Boost Foundation's government, and theoretically the C++ Alliance could continue to make financial and technical contributions under the government of the Boost Foundation. I also hear that this is practically impossible, for reasons that are not all clear to me. I understand that there are fundamental differences in philosophy. The Boost Foundation has the volunteer model, where people devote their private time as their lives permit, and that the C++ Alliance is an organization with huge funds, and the capability to employ people. I also understand that it is a risk for the C++ Alliance to invest huge assets in the Boost project, knowing that ultimately the efforts can be torpedoed by the decisions of the Boost Foundation. I am not saying that this is or has been the case. I am only pointing out the obvious consequences of the mistrust. The Boost Foundation is volunteer-driven. This means that people work on what is deer to their heart, and if something is not deer to anybody's heart, it may not be done, even if important. The volunteers can only put as much effort to their work as their private life permits. This means sometimes they have to give up. The effect might be that a volunteer-based organization may appear unreliable. On the other hand, volunteer work inspires more volunteers. I was surprised to find that the Boost Foundation's, as it is today, primary goal is not to support Boost's interests: it supports many initiatives, Boost being one of them. I was misled by the name. People, including myself, have pointed out that the support for the Beman project is somehow in conflict with supporting Boost. But having thought more about it, I no longer feel this way. I am now inclined to think that the Beman project is the best thing that could happen to minimize the damage caused by the current process of standardizing libraries in WG21. So if there is any glitch in the Boost Foundation, it is the support for some proceedings in WG21. This is because WG21 innovates and experiments, instead of standardising the things that work. I think the Boost Foundation has been doing a good job at steering Boost. If people feel that "they are doing nothing", this might be the indication of the job done right: Boost is rolling, the lights are on, the Foundation is not getting in the way of the developers. Most of the job done is invisible. The question is, can we still improve if we adopt the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement from the Alliance. I understand that the Agreement gives the Alliance the sense of stability: that the efforts that cost years and millions will be integrated. This would help secure the development of essential components that we need: * the modularization * the platform for communication that is open for the young, while not discriminating the old (like myself) * a tool that helps produce documentation. Except for the first, I do not think they can be achieved without a substantial financial effort. Risks: * With this huge and single source of income, we will be looking more like a company than a volunteer organization. * It is likely that because of this Boost will not attract new volunteers * It is likely that no-one else will feel the need to sponsor Boost. But even if some of these risks were to materialize, the value of having a tool for writing documentation for C++ libraries is so huge: it goes beyond Boost. My concern from a different level is that after all the chaotic and unpleasant (mis)communication in the Mailing List, I am left with the impression that the C++ Alliance is ready to break the established rules in order to achieve the goals. This may be a deeply unfair statement, but I can't help it: this is what the shreds of information that I receive suggest. The proposed Agreement attempts to secure the Boost project against the situation of an irresolvable conflict, but no agreement can secure your interests when the agreements are not respected. During this review period I have heard late but honest explanations from the Boost Foundation members that explain their actions and show their motivation, and I find them credible. I do not believe I have heard the account from the C++ Alliance that would help understand what motivated the organization to act the way they did. One last concern is that I am not comfortable with the fact that the proposed Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement re-uses the term "Steering Committee". As indicated in other messages, the Boost Foundation *is* the Steering Committee, or rather continues the tradition of the Steering Committee with the same people onboard (not all, obviously), and with the same ideals. In order to honour them and in appreciation of their work, I think the new setup should not intercept this name. Regarding the question of attracting or repelling new contributors, I find it hard to believe that the enforced Code of Conduct could have a significant impact on the results. In my opinion, what could have a bigger impact is when Boost becomes modular, people can afford to use it more in more contexts, appreciate it more, and some of them decide to contribute. Regarding the Foundation's counter-proposal. I do not find anything material in it. I read it as "let's leave the things as they are, but let's enforce the CoC and increase transparency and efficiency". As I said, I cannot see how the enforced CoC could make a substantial difference. Regarding the efficiency and transparency, I do not find anything substantially wrong with them today: they are good enough. Today we are facing a crisis, but other than that I think the Boost Foundation is doing a good job. The Boost Foundation also mentions the modularization and the new communication platform, but even the Foundation members admit they do not believe that making such big projects would work with the Boost's consensus-based philosophy. In closing, I would like to say that I am grateful to the members of both the C++ Alliance and the Boost Foundation for your contributions to the Boost project and community. I have certainly benefited from your work, in many ways. I recommend accepting the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement from the C++ Alliance, as I see the potential in it to significantly improve the situation of Boost, and other good libraries out there (I mean the new documentation tool), while recognizing that this is a risky decision. Regards, &rzej;

2 1

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Ruben
by Ruben Perez 13 Sep '24

13 Sep '24

DISCLAIMER: I'm a C++ Alliance employee Hi all, I'm the author and current maintainer of Boost.MySQL. I'd first like to thank both the Boost Foundation and the C++ Alliance for their contributions and efforts, especially when done in their free time. On the technical side, I particularly appreciate the infrastructure contributions the C++ Alliance has made. The Drone CI has been really important for me even when I was a volunteer, as it's fast and supports Windows Docker images. I also appreciate their efforts regarding documentation, as I share the need to update Boost in this aspect. Of course, their recent sponsorship regarding Boost.MySQL has allowed me to develop the library much further than my otherwise scarce free time would have allowed me. I think the C++Al proposal is good, as it will allow other authors like me to also benefit from infrastructure improvements like the ones I mentioned. C++Al people are pretty technically enthusiastic, which I also like. The concern of letting too much of Boost's decision power in a single organization's hands seems legit. However, the proposal seems to take this into account, proposing several measures to mitigate the risk, with a Steering Committee composed of respected Boost developers. I also support adding Peter and Glen to the committee. I also appreciate the contributions that the Boost Foundation members have made to Boost, and would like to thank them for that. I'd like to echo a point made by others in the mailing list throughout this discussion and also somewhat reflected in The Boost Foundation's proposal, about mailing list friendliness to newcomers. When I first reached out to evaluate the potential usefulness of what would become Boost.MySQL (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2020/03/248301.php) I received a couple of really discouraging comments, which almost made me abandon the idea. These comments were based on the (somehow understandable) misconception that my library was a wrapper around the official C API. Thanks to other people's support (Richard, Chris, Vinnie and some others, IIRC) I managed to move forward. But it could have not been the case. As a community, we could try to improve instances of this to make things better for newcomers. That said, I think the C++ Alliance proposal moves in the right direction, so I vote to ACCEPT it. Thanks, Ruben.

8 11