I'm writing to represent the spirit in which Boost was founded and in which we ran it, as a community, up until 2013. I realize the review is nominally about asset stewardship, but IIUC the more fundamental change being discussed is about governance, not who holds Boost's property. Before I moved on to other things, I participated in setting up a steering committee that was supposed to step in and make important decisions when Boost's default "community-based leadership and decision making" process got stuck or was otherwise inadequate. That body, I gather, evolved into the Foundation board. For some purposes, that governance structure has worked, but when it comes to managing Boost's assets, it seems the ball was dropped, and the Foundation did not self-correct. Therefore, I very much understand why one might want to transfer Boost governance to an organization with more apparent energy. All that said I am deeply concerned about recent actions by the C++ Alliance. Please correct me if I'm misinformed about any of this, because as I've said I've been out of the loop. It is my understanding that the Alliance did not communicate to the Foundation or publicize its efforts to gain control of the boost.org <http://boost.org/> domain name. Effective or not, the Foundation is the nominal governing body for Boost, and coordination with the Foundation would have been the appropriate, aboveboard course to take. It is my understanding that despite an agreement to coordinate the launch of a new Boost website with the Foundation board, the Alliance decided to launch boost.io <http://boost.io/> in parallel with boost.org <http://boost.org/>. That move is problematic for all the same reasons. It also creates confusion for the user community about where the real Boost is. These aggressive and unilateral actions seem to be at odds with the spirit of Boost and to be harmful to the coherence of its community. IMO it's very much to the Foundation's credit that they did not respond in kind, but instead opened a discussion about Boost's future governance and offered to abide by the community's decision. That is what I'd expect from a group that truly had Boost's interests at heart. All that is great but it does seem very wrong that the conversation should be prompted by actions like the above, and for me, any outcome that transfers Boost governance to the instigators of those actions compounds the problem. It saddens me greatly that a rift exists between the Alliance and the Foundation, because the energy and commitment of the Alliance members is admirable, and communication here on the mailing list looks like it has been productive. My ideal outcome would be to repair whatever is needed to make the Foundation work as a governing body, and to repair the relationships so that Alliance members can continue to make great technical contributions without feeling like the Foundation is holding up their progress. I'm sure that would be asking a great deal of the participants on both sides, but that's what I'd like. It seems to me any correctives that would result from a governance transition could equally well be applied to the Foundation itself. - Dave
Hi Dave, Thanks so much for contributing your thoughts to the discussion. My ideal outcome would be to repair whatever is needed to make the Foundation work as a governing body, and to repair the relationships so that Alliance members can continue to make great technical contributions without feeling like the Foundation is holding up their progress. I'm sure that would be asking a great deal of the participants on both sides, but that's what I'd like. The following are my personal opinions. This was my ideal outcome when I took over as chair and initiated a channel of communication with C++ Alliance leadership. I genuinely thought we had made progress toward collaborating effectively. The attempted acquisition of the domain name seemed (and was confirmed verbally by leadership) to be a direct attempt to permanently circumvent the board. I understand that there was some acrimony between members of the Alliance and the Foundation before I took over as chair. However, I am generally a collaborative person (I do genuinely think a lot of disagreements come down to miscommunications), and I believed, perhaps naively, that we could move past our issues and make forward progress together. I'd like to acknowledge that in all personal interactions with me, Alliance leadership has been respectful and friendly. However, as chair of an organization, I have to put personal relationships aside and attempt to do what I feel is best for the organization as a whole. An organization cannot have two steering bodies, one of which does not want to work collaboratively with the other. There will be a continuous stream of issues that the community will inevitably pulled into. I have reservations about the Alliance's stewardship capabilities. However, a constant stream of infighting is no way for a community to function. If the community were to resoundly tell the Alliance that collaborating openly with the Board of Directors is their preferred approach AND the Alliance were to agree to that state of affairs, perhaps there would be a way forward. I do not personally see that as being something Alliance leadership would be amenable to. On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:04 PM Dave Abrahams via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I'm writing to represent the spirit in which Boost was founded and in which we ran it, as a community, up until 2013.
I realize the review is nominally about asset stewardship, but IIUC the more fundamental change being discussed is about governance, not who holds Boost's property.
Before I moved on to other things, I participated in setting up a steering committee that was supposed to step in and make important decisions when Boost's default "community-based leadership and decision making" process got stuck or was otherwise inadequate. That body, I gather, evolved into the Foundation board. For some purposes, that governance structure has worked, but when it comes to managing Boost's assets, it seems the ball was dropped, and the Foundation did not self-correct. Therefore, I very much understand why one might want to transfer Boost governance to an organization with more apparent energy.
All that said I am deeply concerned about recent actions by the C++ Alliance. Please correct me if I'm misinformed about any of this, because as I've said I've been out of the loop. It is my understanding that the Alliance did not communicate to the Foundation or publicize its efforts to gain control of the boost.org < http://boost.org/> domain name. Effective or not, the Foundation is the nominal governing body for Boost, and coordination with the Foundation would have been the appropriate, aboveboard course to take. It is my understanding that despite an agreement to coordinate the launch of a new Boost website with the Foundation board, the Alliance decided to launch boost.io <http://boost.io/> in parallel with boost.org < http://boost.org/>. That move is problematic for all the same reasons. It also creates confusion for the user community about where the real Boost is. These aggressive and unilateral actions seem to be at odds with the spirit of Boost and to be harmful to the coherence of its community. IMO it's very much to the Foundation's credit that they did not respond in kind, but instead opened a discussion about Boost's future governance and offered to abide by the community's decision. That is what I'd expect from a group that truly had Boost's interests at heart. All that is great but it does seem very wrong that the conversation should be prompted by actions like the above, and for me, any outcome that transfers Boost governance to the instigators of those actions compounds the problem.
It saddens me greatly that a rift exists between the Alliance and the Foundation, because the energy and commitment of the Alliance members is admirable, and communication here on the mailing list looks like it has been productive. My ideal outcome would be to repair whatever is needed to make the Foundation work as a governing body, and to repair the relationships so that Alliance members can continue to make great technical contributions without feeling like the Foundation is holding up their progress. I'm sure that would be asking a great deal of the participants on both sides, but that's what I'd like. It seems to me any correctives that would result from a governance transition could equally well be applied to the Foundation itself.
- Dave
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 9/12/24 20:33, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
If the community were to resoundly tell the Alliance that collaborating openly with the Board of Directors is their preferred approach AND the Alliance were to agree to that state of affairs, perhaps there would be a way forward. I do not personally see that as being something Alliance leadership would be amenable to.
The preference for the two organizations to collaborate was voiced on this ML by multiple community members, including myself. However, both The Boost Foundation and The C++ Alliance have expressed that such collaboration is not possible. So here we are.
El 12/09/2024 a las 19:04, Dave Abrahams via Boost escribió:
I'm writing to represent the spirit in which Boost was founded and in which we ran it, as a community, up until 2013.
Hi Dave, good to see you around!
I realize the review is nominally about asset stewardship, but IIUC the more fundamental change being discussed is about governance, not who holds Boost's property. No, the review is exactly about asset stewardship, as made explicit by Glen in the review announcement:
https://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2024/09/0629.php "To be clear, the review is not about deciding governance over Boost C++ library development. That remains in the hands of the Boost developer community." If you ask me, I think governance, cultural and related issues are very much worth discussing, but such discussions do not belong in the review really.
It is my understanding that despite an agreement to coordinate the launch of a new Boost website with the Foundation board, the Alliance decided to launch boost.io <http://boost.io/> in parallel with boost.org <http://boost.org/>.
boost.io was announced on June 17 here: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/06/256965.php and in a manner that explained that this was a launch-ready preview in preparation to the switch to boost.org, which at the time was agreed on between the C++ Alliance and the Boost Foundation. The homepage on boost.io says: "Proposed for boost.org" When I wrote that post, I was confident that the switch was a matter of days or a few weeks, but on June 26 the Boost Foundation announced their termination of collaboration with the C++ Alliance: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2024/06/256978.php I personally take the blame for making the announcement without checking that the agreement was secure moving forward. Joaquin M Lopez Munoz
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:44 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz wrote:
El 12/09/2024 a las 19:04, Dave Abrahams via Boost escribió:
I realize the review is nominally about asset stewardship, but IIUC the more fundamental change being discussed is about governance, not who holds Boost's property.
No, the review is exactly about asset stewardship, as made explicit by Glen in the review announcement:
https://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2024/09/0629.php
"To be clear, the review is not about deciding governance over Boost C++ library development. That remains in the hands of the Boost developer community."
If you ask me, I think governance, cultural and related issues are very much worth discussing, but such discussions do not belong in the review really.
I wanted to affirm this. The outcome of the ongoing review is only confined to management and control of those Boost assets listed. In general, while acting as review manager, I would prefer someone else in the Boost Foundation speak on behalf of the organization, but since this topic is both outside the scope of the review and I have gone on record many times in the past about this: My position has always been that the Boost Foundation now acts in support of Boost library development but not in any form of control over it. Others on the Boost Foundation board have also expressed the same on the list, so I know I'm not alone in this. This has been a generally touchy subject beginning with the CMake announcement, after which many members of the community have expressed the desire for the Foundation to not interfere in that side of things[1]. If people have changed their minds over time, or otherwise want to discuss that, it's a free mailing list - but I would be remiss if I did not repeat the clarification about the review and its goal above. Glen [1] I also feel like the Foundation has respected the community's wishes and adhered to that, ever since.
czw., 12 wrz 2024 o 23:40 Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> napisał(a):
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:44 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz wrote:
El 12/09/2024 a las 19:04, Dave Abrahams via Boost escribió:
I realize the review is nominally about asset stewardship, but IIUC the more fundamental change being discussed is about governance, not who holds Boost's property.
No, the review is exactly about asset stewardship, as made explicit by Glen in the review announcement:
https://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2024/09/0629.php
"To be clear, the review is not about deciding governance over Boost C++ library development. That remains in the hands of the Boost developer community."
If you ask me, I think governance, cultural and related issues are very much worth discussing, but such discussions do not belong in the review really.
I wanted to affirm this. The outcome of the ongoing review is only confined to management and control of those Boost assets listed.
When I read the Foundation's counter-proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFt7Bh71e4_uE0iK4jifhR__P0iG5_c1cDfBsMjr... It proposes, in section "What we propose", point 1: *Governance* remains with the Boost Foundation which continues to serve as the legal entity representing Boost. Is this just a bad choice of words? Regards, &rzej;
In general, while acting as review manager, I would prefer someone else in the Boost Foundation speak on behalf of the organization, but since this topic is both outside the scope of the review and I have gone on record many times in the past about this:
My position has always been that the Boost Foundation now acts in support of Boost library development but not in any form of control over it. Others on the Boost Foundation board have also expressed the same on the list, so I know I'm not alone in this.
This has been a generally touchy subject beginning with the CMake announcement, after which many members of the community have expressed the desire for the Foundation to not interfere in that side of things[1].
If people have changed their minds over time, or otherwise want to discuss that, it's a free mailing list - but I would be remiss if I did not repeat the clarification about the review and its goal above.
Glen
[1] I also feel like the Foundation has respected the community's wishes and adhered to that, ever since.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 6:12 PM Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
When I read the Foundation's counter-proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFt7Bh71e4_uE0iK4jifhR__P0iG5_c1cDfBsMjr... It proposes, in section "What we propose", point 1:
*Governance* remains with the Boost Foundation which continues to serve as the legal entity representing Boost.
Is this just a bad choice of words?
Take Kristen's reply as authoritative, but my understanding is that the above refers to the assets in question, and not at all for the direction of the C++ library development. (Allow for some time as she might be involved in CppCon preparation). For the latter, as Zach mentioned, the Foundation would continue to not impose its will. It would be available for the community to consult and be a tie breaker if requested. The proposal does, however, propose a more active role in the administration of those assets. Glen
participants (6)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Andrzej Krzemienski -
Dave Abrahams -
Glen Fernandes -
Joaquin M López Muñoz -
Kristen Shaker