On 7/31/24 23:11, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
Here are what we believe to be the available options.
1.
The C++ Alliance assumes control of the Boost assets, including the boost.org domain name. The Boost Foundation becomes uninvolved in any decisions related to the Boost Libraries. 2.
The Boost Foundation continues to be the stewards of the boost.org domain name and related assets. New assets that are meant to be associated with the Boost Libraries are transferred to the Boost Foundation. In any matters related to the Boost Libraries, the Board will abide by any decisions made by the developers but will no longer vote themselves on issues as they relate to the Boost Libraries unless there truly is no clear consensus or path forward.
I'm probably not going to be helpful, but I don't really like either of the options, with the first one being slightly less preferable. Although the input from The C++ Alliance members in many areas of Boost is undeniable, the organization is apparently being run by a single individual. I haven't met Vinnie, so I can only judge about his personality based on his posts to this list and a small amount of personal correspondence. My impression is that he is devoted to Boost, but rather emotional and ambitious, and that may sometimes cloud his judgment. It is possible that his interests won't always be aligned with Boost, and I cannot be sure that his devotion to Boost won't change in the future or that he won't try to transform Boost into something that is not accepted by the wider Boost community. I'm sorry if this sounds like a personal stab at Vinnie, but it really isn't. It is not my intention to offend anyone, but given the structure of The C++ Alliance funding, personalities need to be considered. Regarding The C++ Alliance organization, its mission statement (https://cppalliance.org/#mission) doesn't even mention Boost. In fact, it focuses on C++ advancement in general and is closer to the Beman Project in spirit. Boost Foundation mission statement (https://sites.google.com/boost.org/boost-foundation/home#h.rszdmunawmm3), I feel, is more aligned specifically with Boost, as it focuses on library development and peer review process, which are effectively what Boost is. So, in short, I don't like the option 1 because I don't fully trust The C++ Alliance to focus on Boost in the long term. Giving it full exclusive control over key Boost infrastructure elements seems like too much power in one's hands. On the Boost Foundation side, I feel that its execution is far from perfect. I'm not privy to details around Boost infrastructure, but it seems like Boost Foundation is not active enough in its maintenance (at least, legal or financial). For example, the legal issue regarding the current Boost logo should have been resolved years ago, when it was pointed to by Rene (reportedly). Instead, after the discussion was held on this list recently, there's still no statement or announcement from the Foundation regarding this issue - and I repeat, a legal issue, which is exactly the kind of issues that are supposed to be helped with by the Foundation. There are other issues with Boost infrastructure owned by Foundation, like outdated software stack running the current website and ML, or issues with package downloads. Those issues go mostly unnoticed by the community as the vast majority of members simply tend to their libraries and don't maintain the infrastructure. Boost Foundation, as the owner of the infrastructure elements, should have been more proactive in exposing and solving the ongoing issues with it - whether by seeking volunteers in the community or hiring external staff. There definitely should be better communication between the Foundation and the community. I don't like the option 2 because it sounds like maintaining the status quo with no changes on the Boost Foundation side. And changes are needed. Additionally, if I understood correctly, it suggests transferring ownership of the assets developed by The C++ Alliance to the Boost Foundation, and I don't feel this will be acceptable by The C++ Alliance. I think, the best you could realistically ask for is acceptable licensing terms and shared control and responsibilities (preferably, in written form). As I said before, the best solution would be for the two organizations to collaborate. But due to personal disagreements that option is no longer on the table. Which is detrimental to Boost and is a huge letdown from both of the orgs. So in the "either or" situation, when I have to pick between options that I don't like, I'm not going to pick any, which means keeping things as they are. I just hope Boost Foundation will be able to improve and do a better job in the future.