On 06/09/2024 16:04, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:
Disclaimer: Alliance employee
Hi, I'm a little confused at what the Boost Foundation put forth.
The opening review email states:
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. But TBF's proposal seems entirely to be governance-related.
In terms of asset stewardship, it's kind of a no-brainer to choose the organization that _didn't_ almost lose the boost.org domain name. Plus, the Alliance has Sam Darwin and he's infallible.
But to the Boost Foundation's credit, I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points being mentioned. Boost _should_ consider introducing a formal CoC. Boost _should_ officially migrate to CMake and being direct here: this does mean completely abandoning b2.
Perhaps ;) It would be a shame if we got too bogged down on what should or should not be in our code of conduct. We do actually have something pretty close here: https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html As for CMake, from the POV of end user experience we're nearly there already. Whether it should replace our testing infrastructure is another matter, I have always found CMake to be rather weak in that area, but then I'm very much a non-CMake user so I'm the last person you should ask ;) John.