The following is my review of the Boost Asset Stewardship proposal(s)
and
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFt7Bh71e4_uE0iK4jifhR__P0iG5_c1cDfBsMjr...
I've also read the (quite) informative posts
and https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/09/257854.php Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the C++ Alliance. I'm on the board of the Boost Foundation (but probably not for much longer.) I think that the Fiscal Sponsorship model is the right fit for us. We're an international community of developers and as explained in the above post, serving on the board is more suited for American citizens, preferably ones with experience. Boost's assets need to be held by a legal entity, and I can't think of any better model than having that entity hold the assets _on behalf of the Boost community, as represented by a group of respected and trusted developers_, with that relationship being contractually specified. Which entity should that be? Long story short, I vote for the C++ Alliance. While I don't always see eye to eye with its leadership, and while it's _in theory_ possible to adopt the above model with the Boost Foundation as the legal asset holder, I've been quite disillusioned by the trajectory of the Foundation and the above proposal does nothing to re-illusion me as it basically doubles down. The Boost Foundation has been steadily drifting away from Boost and now openly has other things as its primary (and secondary) focus. And, even though it now has its own project that it can govern to its heart's content, the ambitions of its leadership to also govern Boost - without having earned the right to do so - have not subsided one bit.