Asset Stewardsip Review Transparency: * I have worked for years with both sides of this review, forged bonds on technical and personal levels and never even cared about that. * I have been (on several occasions) offered money by the Committe for my perpetual work on Boost.GSoC, yet refused categorically to accept any money. I operate as in independent reseacher and developer. I have no financial ties with any thing, entity or ogranization whatsoever when engaging in FOSS. My popular text-book Real-Time C++ is not affiliated with Boost nor with the C++ Alliance. Here is my review of the proposed Boost.AssetStewardsipReview ## What is your evaluation of the design? The design from the C++ Alliance is lucidly clear with good structure. This makes the proposed Boost.AssetStewardsipReview from the C++ Alliance easy to use. I will categorically accept it below. Their description is simultaneously quite clear, powerful and transparent. The transparancy revolves around evactly extracted data regarding both trends in Boost (sadly negative developer participation) as well as monetary funding, seemingly at an all-time high. Intuitively, I appreciated much more the congenial, all-encompassing style and rhetoric of the Committee. The emphasis on community and steady continuity came through loud and clear. This reached me on a personal level and is much more consistent with my personal style than that style so far revealed by the the Alliance. As a long-time contributor, that moved me, so much that it was almost on an emotional level. Yet when using, developing, promoting and ultimately funding Boost, we need hard motion forward. And this forward motion comes with the somewhat harder edges and forward-moving rehetorical style of the Alliance. ## What is your evaluation of the implementation? Excellent. A few suggestions for potential evolution of Boost.AssetStewardsipReview. Get your rhetoric on posts, communications and stylistic aspects to be more congenial. This subjective observation can be interpreted however you want it to be, but I would prefer more mild tones. The strong, progressive forward-motion of the Alliance, tempered with a more congeinal style reminiscent of the Committee would have been a perfect match. Repeatedly, and publicly I called both sides out to form a feeble, united common front. Yet failure to do so causes us to choose door number 1 or door number 2. I select the C++ Alliance proposal. I would like to see some evidence of a future which ushers in a long-term period of peace. I do not want some lurking thing named the Beman project to cause petty, dissent for years to come. So please deal with that (or whatever it will be) presently and refrain from straining us and dividing us over this in the future. ## Operational aspects The C++ Alliance has brought our potency and quality to a level seemingly unreachable without them. We have CI/CD that actually runs. Docs, Libs and productive things associated with them are working. We have highly exacting consumers in all areas. In my areas of Math and Multiprecison, we would be weaker and poorer without the drive, funding and expertise of the C++ Alliance. In testing, new aspects of coverage, fuzzing, pure-portability hands-down are better than ever. And honestly prior to the advent of the Alliance, these somewhat rudimentary quality aspects seemed unatainable. Now it's an everyday thing. With the C++ Alliance, we simply live the quality lifestyle in our code and deliver it to the clients. Boost libraries are showing improved quality with Code Coverage reports and statistics. Although this adds no real functionality, I think it helps prove overall quality. When compiling, I really enjoy using advanced compiler warnings. Two of my favorites on GCC are -Wconversion and -Wsign-conversion. When using these, I find progress from the C++ Alliance with still al lot of work to go. The C++ Alliance embraces these rudimentary quality attributes and pays for them to get done. Providing evidence of running modern syntax checker(s) might improve confidence in all of oure libraries and/or reduce the libraries' vulnerability. The C++ Alliance seems committed to this essential goal. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? It's great. The C++ Alliance proposal cleared up all goals and wiped doubts regarding tranparency off the table. This proposal is lucidly clear. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the Boost.AssetStewardsipReview? Exceptionally high. Use the C++ Alliance and and embrace their Boost.AssetStewardsipReview - Did you try to use the Boost.AssetStewardsipReview? Yes daily and it just works. What compiler? Did you have any problems? Yes absolutely. They support the normal stuff. Of course still weak on deeply embedded targets, but everyone is. I tried with MSVC 2019, 2022, GCC 11-13 No issues. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Years. And I grow weary of the back-and-forth on the lists. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Not really. I have no concern whatsoever about the financial nor the legal aspects of this proposal. On a personal level, I found it highly disturbing to have this conflict dragged into my face on essentially a daily basis. Please resolve this. I have written many programs and applications based on and using Boost. That development activity is hindered by the constant unrest on the boards. So deal with it, adapt and get a consistent approach. ## Do you think the C++ Alliance proposal should be accepted? Yes! Christopher Kormanyos On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 02:55:55 AM GMT+2, Glen Fernandes via Boost-announce <boost-announce@lists.boost.org> wrote: Everyone, The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next week, September 3rd. For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf Also attached to this email as: CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST). A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list. The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone to participate. The official review start announcement email next week will detail the process for participation. Thank you, - Glen _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-announce