Re: [boost] A Follow Up to My Original Note Re The Future of Boost

On 1. Aug 2024, at 14:12, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

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.

Same here, +1 for option 2. I rather have inefficient and slow progress, considering the alternative. Res publica.