[Boost-announce] Boost Asset Stewardship Review Result

From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-28 00:22:55

Dear Boost developers and users,

This concludes the Boost Asset Stewardship review was conducted
between 09/03 and 09/22. I want to thank everyone who submitted a
review and everyone who otherwise contributed to the discussion.  What
follows is my review result.

For fairness and for the record, this is my connection to all parties involved:

For the Boost C++ libraries I am or have been:
- A Boost library author,
- A maintainer of at least three Boost libraries,
- A contributor to at least ten other Boost libraries,
- A review manager of at least two Boost reviews,
- A release manager,
- A maintainer of the Boost GitHub organization,
- A moderator of the Boost mailing lists,

For the Boost Foundation I am or have been:
- A former member of the Boost Steering Committee
- A director on the board,

For the C++ Alliance I have been:
- A volunteer that helped review project specifications and resumes,

On behalf of the Boost community, I accept the C++ Alliance Fiscal
Sponsorship proposal with the following condition:

- The new committee should be named something which clearly indicates
that its purpose is confined to Boost's assets or infrastructure.
There should be no confusion or question over whether it has any
control or even other influence over the C++ library development.
Please avoid any mention of "Steering" or "Direction".

I accept the three initial members of the committee as proposed (Ion,
Rene, Joaquin) without reservations. All three are Boost developers
whom I respect and I am confident of their ability and their desire to
serve the Boost community. While I appreciate the invitation to join,
and would otherwise never refuse an opportunity to help Boost, I feel
like my making the acceptance decision of the founding committee
should prohibit me being on that list.

The reviews and the discussion has convinced me that the Fiscal
Sponsorship model is the right choice for Boost going forward.

- It provides us with the financing we need now, and secures a very
credible path for depending on them going forward. Moreover, it puts
the administration of those resources in the hands of those
representing our community. The Foundation can and has tried to
achieve the same thing, but it should be obvious that it does not have
the same level of financial resources, or technical and legal
expertise at its disposal.

- It has the support of a great majority of the Boost community. It is
no secret that there has been a growing rift between the Boost
developers and some of the Foundation members, despite my and others
best attempts at healing it. Even with the same resources provided to
the Foundation, I don't see it achieving the same level of acceptance
and consensus that the C++ Alliance has.

I want to thank the C++ Alliance for crafting this proposal, and
giving us a solution for supporting those parts of Boost
infrastructure that are increasingly expensive and complex to manage.
This will allow the rest of us to focus on what we love doing: Working
on C++ libraries.

And I would be remiss if I did not repeat my  gratitude to the C++
Alliance and to Vinnie for those  times in the past he has come to
Boost's rescue, many of these at my request.

Next, I want to thank all present and past members of the Foundation
and the Steering Committee for their service to the Boost project.
Especially, I want to thank Michael Caisse for all the time and energy
he has dedicated over the years to supporting the parts of Boost site
and mailing lists that we take for granted.

On that same note I want to thank the Foundation for agreeing to this
review and committing to its result. If nothing else, I hope this act
alone demonstrates to the community that despite past events, the
intention of the Foundation is to act in accordance with the
community's wishes.

I would also like to make it known that I will submit a suggestion in
the next meeting that the Boost Foundation rename itself to not
include the word "Boost". Ultimately, it will come down to a vote
between the board members, but I believe this is the best thing for
the Foundation.

Just as the rename from BoostCon to C++Now enabled the conference to
achieve its goals of reaching the broader C++ community, the hope is
that this will similarly enable  the Foundation to succeed with its
current mission, which spans beyond Boost.

Finally, I want to repeat my thanks to the community for their voice
in this review.

While the list above of my involvement in Boost might seem
significant, it really is not. I have contributed a small fraction of
what some of the people who participated in this review have. But all
of us are here because we are invested in Boost and want it to succeed
more than it has already. And I hope that the decision above will help
Boost do just that.

Sincerely,
Glen