Hi all, I want to start by expressing my gratitude to Kristen. She’s done, and continues to do, an incredible job in her tenure on the Boost Foundation including leadership of a project to migrate Wowbagger off legacy platforms, running the Diversity and Inclusion team, and now as board chair. I especially appreciate her willingness to address our present challenges, which are stressful to say the least. In this email I’d like to explore what options 1 and 2 look like from an operational perspective (wearing my Boost Foundation Executive Director hat) and then outline my opinion (as an on and off contributor of about 15 years, usually in the form of mailing list discussions and reviews). The Boost Foundation is the fiscal sponsor/entity for four projects right now: 1) the Boost project, 2) the C++Now conference, 3) the C++ standardization project, and 4) the Beman project. Going with the first option means that the Boost project would cease to be a Boost Foundation project and the C++ Alliance would take this role. What would happen is this: 1. The Boost Foundation donates the boost.org domain to the C++ Alliance once it acquires it. The Beman Dawes estate is in the process of donating it to the Boost Foundation after conducting an impartial investigation ultimately concluding that the Boost Foundation is most aligned with Beman Dawes’s ideals. The process may take up to a year due to legal processes. 2. Wowbagger, which runs the mailing lists, website, and is used for releases, would be transferred to the C++ Alliance. 3. Our mailgun account, another component in the mailing list system, would be transferred to the C++ Alliance. 4. We would sign an agreement which makes the C++ Alliance “the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to all trademarks associated solely with the Boost software project throughout the world and the goodwill associated therewith including the trademark Boost in stylized and unstylized form”. These trademarks were transferred to the Boost Foundation from the Software Freedom Conservancy in 2022 so we would pass these on to the C++ Alliance. 5. From a financial standpoint, the Foundation spends about ~$13k annually on the Boost Project. These expenses would become the responsibility of the C++ Alliance. Additionally, I assume the Boost Foundation will take up a new name since it will henceforth no longer be associated with the Boost project. The Boost Foundation is also tasked with committing the Boost project to specific action “where consensus cannot be reached, but a decision must be made”. This role would presumably fall upon the C++ Alliance board of directors: Vinnie Falco, Rene Rivera, and Jon Kalb. (For reference, the Boost Foundation’s board of directors consists of Kristen Shaker, Glen Fernandes, Inbal Levi, Michael Caisse, Bob Steagall, Zach Laine, Jeff Garland, Peter Dimov, and Matthew Guidry, and me) Option 2 is the status quo (the Boost Foundation stewards the trademark, domain, website, mailing list, etc.) with the additional caveat that any “new assets meant to be associated with the Boost Libraries”, like logos, would be transferred to the Boost Foundation. The additional caveat means the board can legally protect the use of such assets from misalignment with the Boost developers and mission, as it does with the assets it currently owns. With Option 2 there are several additional open questions. What happens with the new website? Will the C++ Alliance be allowed to fund a CppCon sponsorship in Boost’s name? This depends entirely on whether there is consensus among developers for these things and willingness of volunteers to execute them. I’m in favor of option 2, but I want to fully acknowledge the drawbacks of the Boost Foundation. First, it is staffed with 100% volunteers who, in many instances, don’t follow through with their commitments. When I was chair, I would try to remind folks, make calls, etc., but there’s only so much leverage one has with volunteers. It’s especially challenging when such folks have exclusive access to resources making it impossible for someone else to pick up the slack. Simple things like getting a bill paid or getting a quorum for a meeting were incredibly hard. Other tasks, like completing the transfer from the Software Freedom Conservancy or dealing with getting the boost.org domain from the Beman estate were gargantuan. On the other hand, when there’s an emergency, the Board has consistently pulled through. I want to say that we don’t have those problems anymore, but we still do. What I can say is that there’s been improvement. I recruited several new board members who do follow through with their commitments and Kristen is one of those. I installed a monthly meeting cadence (instead of yearly) to keep it active, spelled out expectations for board members, added redundancy with our key holders, introduced public meeting minutes for transparency, and built consensus around the Boost Foundation mission. That being said, I don’t have a perfect record. While I’ve frequently picked up the ball where others have dropped it, I don't always have the time or patience to do this. Worse, I’ve lost my cool when I’ve perceived hostile takeovers and attacks on the Boost Foundation, sending out emails embarrassing everyone involved. It’s impossible to know what Beman Dawes would do in this situation, but I gotta believe he would want to help improve the board rather than dump it. Like Kristen said, we have open board seats. Those who are willing to be a team player and put in the work to help are more than welcome. Yeah it’s messy and frequently frustrating, but that’s how it is with volunteer organizations. That’s Boost. -- David