On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 8:42 AM Klemens Morgenstern via Boost
It is also quite possible that new steering committee will actually be able to steer boost, if it is made up by developers. This would overcome issues in boost, because instead of commanding from on-high to migrate to CMake, the developers would first put in the work to build consensus (by building the thing) before announcing move. It looks to me like this has succeeded with CMake thanks to Peter and is in the works for a modularization by Rene.
Firstly thank you for your review, and apologies for pressing Ctrl+ENTER by accident. It's important to understand that this new Steering Committee, despite the unfortunate name, is not responsible for "steering Boost:" "The purpose of the Steering Committee is to make decisions regarding the use of the Boost assets which require legal ownership by an individual or legal entity." This is important enough that we should probably add it to the Contributor's Guide (Turcan?) under a section "Steering Committee" so there is no confusion. The legal ownership of assets by a registered 501(c)(3) is necessary for donations to Boost to be tax-deductible. Here are examples of assets which need legal ownership: * Domain names * Trademarks * Cloud hosting accounts * Donated funds Here are examples of things which do not need legal ownership: * Individual repositories * The Boost GitHub organization * Efforts to support CMake * Efforts to modularize Boost Boost's current governance model for things that do not require legal ownership is working out quite well. As you pointed out, CMake is being supported, and Boost is becoming modular. This all happened without any Steering Committee and without oversight from the Boost Foundation. The Alliance proposal only has something to say about the governance of the assets which require legal ownership, and remains silent on other things. After all, why mess with what is already working? Thanks