Re: [boost] (Important) Boost Foundation meeting this Wednesday
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:23 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
Our monthly Boost Foundation meeting is this Wednesday at 3pm Eastern (12pm Pacific).
To: Boost developer community and Boost Foundation Board Hi everyone, I write to address two important matters regarding recent events. First, upon reviewing my messages with David and conferring with Vinnie, I must apologize for a miscommunication. I did not realize that “copyright assignment” was a term of art which means to transfer all legal rights and title. I thought instead it meant that Boost Foundation would receive a license to reproduce the logo without permission in referential contexts. Vinnie wasn’t involved in this so it is unfair to blame him; in fact, the task of this communication was delegated to me specifically because David suggested that dealing with someone else might be preferable to dealing with Vinnie. Second, as the agenda for the Boost Foundation board meeting occurring on March 13th includes a discussion of the new website, I would reiterate our proposed contribution to the developer community. A transfer of copyrights is not in line with Boost tradition, but it is still possible for us to have a healthy relationship. Thusly we repeat our previous offer: 1. The boost.org domain will point to The C++ Alliance servers running the new website, which we will operate and pay for. 2. Administrative access to the new cloud services will include Sam Darwin (CTO of C++ Alliance), plus anyone appointed by the developer community. 3. The new Boost logo (“B Mark”) will have its copyright and trademark retained by The C++ Alliance, and it will be published under a license which allows for irrevocable, permissionless reproduction in the context of referring to the Boost Libraries. The text for this is being prepared by our legal team, and it will be similar to the wording found under “Foundation name and C++ logo” here https://isocpp.org/home/terms-of-use. 4. Work on the website and documentation will continue in the repositories now under control of the developer community at https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2 and https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs and licensed under the BSL. 5. If and when the developer community feels that the new website, infrastructure, or level of support received does not meet with expectations, the boost.org domain can be pointed away from The C++ Alliance servers. We believe this proposal is fair, generous, and respectful to tradition. It honors contributors by empowering them to continue their work, in a way that preserves the independence of the Boost project. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Louis Tatta CEO, The C++ Alliance, Inc.
On 3/11/24 1:22 PM, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:23 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
Our monthly Boost Foundation meeting is this Wednesday at 3pm Eastern (12pm Pacific).
Second, as the agenda for the Boost Foundation board meeting occurring on March 13th includes a discussion of the new website,
Louis Tatta CEO, The C++ Alliance, Inc.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a process similar to the formal process for new libraries? This would help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc. I just don't see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for. Robert Ramey
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 6:11 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a process similar to the formal process for new libraries?
What I decided early on is that we were just going to build the new website the way we thought would be really cool and exciting, and that when we had something that was actually at a point that could be a reasonable replacement for the old website we would unveil it to the community. There was the understanding that people might hate it and the work would have been for nothing. To the contrary, I am surprised and happy to see that most of it is well received.
This would help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc.
Consensus is admirable but trying to get a thousand developers from different countries to all agree on what is aesthetically pleasing, what is elegant in terms of user interface, and what is functional with respect to a website is an exercise in frustration leading to failure. I believe that the success of this new website is in no small part because it was driven by one person with his own artistic vision, who could see the project through from start to finish and preserve its creative integrity.
I just don't see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for.
We account for all considerations by establishing a working process, where website issues can be opened via GitHub, prioritized and scheduled, assigned to full-time staff, and then tracked by stakeholders who can shepherd the issue to resolution by working with staff. You can see an example of that process at work here: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues/938 This of course will take time so I invite the community to roll up their sleeves and join us in making this a website that we can all be proud of which reflects the high quality of the Boost brand. Thanks
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:11 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 3/11/24 1:22 PM, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:23 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
Our monthly Boost Foundation meeting is this Wednesday at 3pm Eastern (12pm Pacific).
Second, as the agenda for the Boost Foundation board meeting occurring on March 13th includes a discussion of the new website,
Louis Tatta CEO, The C++ Alliance, Inc.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a process similar to the formal process for new libraries? This would help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc. I just don't see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for.
Having the unique experience of designing and implementing the past two Boost web sites. Designing and implementing a website doesn't lend itself to the same kind of cut and dry accept/reject process that is the formal review process. Mainly because most of the aspects are not technical but subjective. Hence I don't believe such a process would accomplish anything other than some people like the site while others do not. Having said that though.. I think the new site design has undergone a looser version of a formal review process where the question is not "should this be accepted?" but instead "what needs to change so that it's usable?". The goal is different. But the process isn't that different. And more importantly, the process does not end for the site. How to make the site usable will continue to be asked, investigated, and changes implemented. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
El 12/03/2024 a las 2:39, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost escribió:
Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a process similar to the formal process for new libraries? This would help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc. I just don't see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for.
The main difference IMHO is that the mailing list is full of C++ experts that are probably terrible at design and usability ;-) Just look the aesthetics of our templated or preprocessor metaprogramming code! Now seriously, not a formal review, but I think it's important that main issues (https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues and https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues) could be discussed and monitored periodically (say, every 6 months) in the ML. Would be cpp.al folks fine with this approach? Best, Ion
I would like something along those lines. That is, I would like a review of functionality, not aesthetics. Re-reading What Ion wrote, I realize I'm not up for a twice-yearly review, so much as one-time input to the web developers on users' needs. Zach On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:41 AM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
El 12/03/2024 a las 2:39, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost escribió:
Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a process similar to the formal process for new libraries? This would help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc. I just don't see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for.
The main difference IMHO is that the mailing list is full of C++ experts that are probably terrible at design and usability ;-) Just look the aesthetics of our templated or preprocessor metaprogramming code!
Now seriously, not a formal review, but I think it's important that main issues (https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues and https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues) could be discussed and monitored periodically (say, every 6 months) in the ML. Would be cpp.al folks fine with this approach?
Best,
Ion
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:33 AM Zach Laine via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I would like something along those lines. That is, I would like a review of functionality, not aesthetics. Re-reading What Ion wrote, I realize I'm not up for a twice-yearly review, so much as one-time input to the web developers on users' needs.
Yes, and in addition to functionality we also need to ensure that the information has been carried over correctly. I'm referring to the "site docs" which are the Antora documentation sites linked from here: https://www.boost.io/doc/user-guide/index.html https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/index.html https://www.boost.io/doc/formal-reviews/index.html Creating the new documentation and translating the existing documentation is no small endeavor and while Peter Turcan (our dedicated Senior Technical Writer) is very talented and motivated, he can't be expected to know the intricacies of the Boost Libraries as well as the developer community. Mailing list discussions are of course welcome, and what really helps is open issues. GitHub issues are the primary tool we use to report and resolve problems. The understated value of an open issue is that it affords a venue for discussion to iterate on choices and record feedback from interested parties. Issues support rich text so we can preview proposed interfaces or graphical options. With a good process for reporting issues and requesting features, where stakeholders can participate throughout the maintenance cycle, and where dedicated staff is continuously working on improvements, we can be assured that given time we will have something truly special. Thanks
Now seriously, not a formal review, but I think it's important that main issues (https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues and https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues) could be discussed and monitored periodically (say, every 6 months) in the ML. Would be cpp.al folks fine with this approach?
I don't think that's a bad idea, but unless things change I don't think it provides a lot of additional value over what we have now, which is already everything being constantly monitored and people being able to complain and open issues about anything at any time.
El 12/03/2024 a las 17:24, Alan de Freitas via Boost escribió:
Now seriously, not a formal review, but I think it's important that main issues (https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues and https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues) could be discussed and monitored periodically (say, every 6 months) in the ML. Would be cpp.al folks fine with this approach?
I don't think that's a bad idea, but unless things change I don't think it provides a lot of additional value over what we have now, which is already everything being constantly monitored and people being able to complain and open issues about anything at any time.
Yes, I just wanted to propose some kind of "state of the website" review once a while from the community. It could be every 12, 24 or 36 months. The difference with a library is that the website is representing somehow the whole federated project and it seems that some collaborators here might be worried about how the website project will go in the long run. But yes, if issues are fixed (the website has now 100+ issues), and we have few complaints in the ML, then there is no need to review anything. Best, Ion
On 3/12/24 2:09 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
El 12/03/2024 a las 17:24, Alan de Freitas via Boost escribió:
Yes, I just wanted to propose some kind of "state of the website" review once a while from the community. It could be every 12, 24 or 36 months.
The difference with a library is that the website is representing somehow the whole federated project and it seems that some collaborators here might be worried about how the website project will go in the long run.
But yes, if issues are fixed (the website has now 100+ issues), and we have few complaints in the ML, then there is no need to review anything.
I don't think that the whole value of the Boost Review process is being appreciated here. It's unique as far as I'm concerned. It focuses everyone's comments to a short period where they can all be discussed together and the best decision can be made for the the component's inclusion/exclusion. To just say that we'll make the switch and people can bring up issues as they occur is not the same thing. Enough of the web site exists so that it's clear what it would be like. The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review. It's an onerous process. Many library authors have declined to submit themselves to it. It is a lot of work. But I think on balance the Boost review process is the secret of Boosts success. For something as central to Boost as this web site, the review process should be applied. I'm asking the Board of Directors to impose this requirement if its not already clear that it's necessary. Robert Ramey
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Enough of the web site exists so that it's clear what it would be like. The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review.
Well said, this resonates with me. Let's do it! Thanks
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review.
Thinking about this a bit more, I have some clarity into some of my recent uncomfortable feelings. A C++ library goes through the review process, and whether it passes or fails the library is still usable. The author can derive value from the library even if rejected, by using it in their own projects and encouraging others to use it and form a following. A new Boost website however, is different. If the website is rejected, then most if not all of the work is for nothing. It is a total loss or close to it. We didn't build a new website on a whim, there was a discussion a few years ago about the need for a new site. There are stakeholders from the Boost community that have worked with us. Although the website was not designed by committee (if for no other reason that such a process makes failure likely), we did get community engagement once there was something worth looking at. Unlike a C++ library, a new Boost website is really only usable for becoming a Boost website. The problem with a straight Boost Formal Review applied to the website, is that a rejection would likely discourage anyone from making the effort again in the first place. Case in point, if I was told at the beginning that our only option would be to publish our website on a different domain while David either co-opts our work himself to place on boost.org, or devalues our labor and puts up his own new website on boost.org, we would have never done the work in the first place. The new website reflects my love the Boost Libraries, and in my opinion there needs to be an implicit understanding that if someone takes on the enormous risk of building a new Boost website, delivers on that promise, and demonstrates their understanding and adoption of Boost culture, we want to encourage and celebrate this. As the website (unlike a library) cannot be repurposed, a rejection would not only be an immense personal loss for me but represent a significant loss for Boost at a time when we need all the victories we can achieve. I would ask everyone who loves Boost to rally and get behind this effort to publish this modern website, to show the onlookers and new potential community members that we are capable of supporting this high-risk / high-reward contribution. The alternative is too dismal to contemplate. Thanks
El 13/03/2024 a las 3:42, Vinnie Falco via Boost escribió:
I would ask everyone who loves Boost to rally and get behind this effort to publish this modern website, to show the onlookers and new potential community members that we are capable of supporting this high-risk / high-reward contribution. The alternative is too dismal to contemplate.
These are good points and the formal review process might not seem a good fit for this, because it's thought for libraries: https://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html But it's a formal process that we have to take decisions, so it might work. Informally, we've been trying to help in the review of the site because discussions in the ML were not well organized. In this informal review process we've asked for changes and I think it worked well. Since I tried to collect all main comments in a informal-review like process, I volunteer to be the review manager if the community agrees. Robert, Vinnie, are you ok with this? Best, Ion
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:35 AM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
...I volunteer to be the review manager if the community agrees.
Robert, Vinnie, are you ok with this?
Yeah we can do that. Thanks
On 3/13/24 12:35 AM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
El 13/03/2024 a las 3:42, Vinnie Falco via Boost escribió:
I would ask everyone who loves Boost to rally and get behind this effort to publish this modern website, to show the onlookers and new potential community members that we are capable of supporting this high-risk / high-reward contribution. The alternative is too dismal to contemplate.
These are good points and the formal review process might not seem a good fit for this, because it's thought for libraries:
https://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html
But it's a formal process that we have to take decisions, so it might work.
Informally, we've been trying to help in the review of the site because discussions in the ML were not well organized. In this informal review process we've asked for changes and I think it worked well.
Since I tried to collect all main comments in a informal-review like process, I volunteer to be the review manager if the community agrees.
Robert, Vinnie, are you ok with this?
Thanks for volunteering as review manager. I would ask that the review wizard take the following actions: a) review the procedures for formal review of libraries and create a version for web site enhancements and other boost tools. Hopefully it would follow the intent and letter of the current process for libraries. b) call for volunteers for review managers and select one and schedule a date. c) I'm tempted to volunteer for review manager myself. But i) it's going to be a lot of work ii) I think I'm much more valuable standing outside pissing into the tent than the opposite. Robert Ramey
I think there is a more likely alternative: Conditional acceptance. This is common recommendation of specific reviewers as well as the review manager. So it a large number of cases, the final result is is a library with changes made in accordance with information which comes about as part of the review process. I know this as having suffered through three reviews, (2 successful, 1 not) this process is a huge contributor to the quality of the final library. I would expect that this same result would obtain when applied to a new boost web site (as well as any boost tool). There is wide consensus that: a) Boost will benefit from an updated website. b) it's a big job that only Vinnie has been willing to undertake. So I believe that the effort has been and will be viewed positively. What I want is to see is wider participation if the submission and validation of ideas on functionaly, scope, and even aesthetics. I know this is a huge pain for the developers, just as it is for library developers. But the pain is worth it. It will result in a much better product. In the future when some raises the question: "Why don't we ..." the answer will be in the archived reviews thus short circuiting the endless circular discussion about these topics. Traditionally, boost tools (including the website) have been developed on some individual initiative by a member of the "inner circle" and presented as a "fait compli". I think we need a more open and formal process for these things. It's the Boost Way and it distinguishes us from the standards process. Robert Ramey On 3/12/24 7:42 PM, Vinnie Falco wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review.
I think there is a more likely alternative: Conditional acceptance. This is common
Thinking about this a bit more, I have some clarity into some of my recent uncomfortable feelings. A C++ library goes through the review process, and whether it passes or fails the library is still usable. The author can derive value from the library even if rejected, by using it in their own projects and encouraging others to use it and form a following.
A new Boost website however, is different. If the website is rejected, then most if not all of the work is for nothing. It is a total loss or close to it. We didn't build a new website on a whim, there was a discussion a few years ago about the need for a new site. There are stakeholders from the Boost community that have worked with us. Although the website was not designed by committee (if for no other reason that such a process makes failure likely), we did get community engagement once there was something worth looking at.
Unlike a C++ library, a new Boost website is really only usable for becoming a Boost website. The problem with a straight Boost Formal Review applied to the website, is that a rejection would likely discourage anyone from making the effort again in the first place. Case in point, if I was told at the beginning that our only option would be to publish our website on a different domain while David either co-opts our work himself to place on boost.org, or devalues our labor and puts up his own new website on boost.org, we would have never done the work in the first place.
The new website reflects my love the Boost Libraries, and in my opinion there needs to be an implicit understanding that if someone takes on the enormous risk of building a new Boost website, delivers on that promise, and demonstrates their understanding and adoption of Boost culture, we want to encourage and celebrate this. As the website (unlike a library) cannot be repurposed, a rejection would not only be an immense personal loss for me but represent a significant loss for Boost at a time when we need all the victories we can achieve.
I would ask everyone who loves Boost to rally and get behind this effort to publish this modern website, to show the onlookers and new potential community members that we are capable of supporting this high-risk / high-reward contribution. The alternative is too dismal to contemplate.
Thanks
-- Robert Ramey www.rrsd.com (805)569-3793
El 12/03/2024 a las 22:28, Robert Ramey via Boost escribió:
Enough of the web site exists so that it's clear what it would be like. The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review. It's an onerous process. Many library authors have declined to submit themselves to it. It is a lot of work. But I think on balance the Boost review process is the secret of Boosts success. For something as central to Boost as this web site, the review process should be applied.
I'm asking the Board of Directors to impose this requirement if its not already clear that it's necessary.
I've mentioned several times: an imposition is not desirable, it won't work and it would be a failure as a community. We (developers, maintainers, review managers) should take the responsibility, or this project has no sense because there is no Boost community. I volunteered for the review management but if we have more talented volunteers they're welcome. Mathew, can we have a tentative schedule? I think we don't have anything in the pipeline, we could start pretty soon if desired... Best, Ion
On 3/11/24 23:22, Louis Tatta via Boost wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:23 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
Our monthly Boost Foundation meeting is this Wednesday at 3pm Eastern (12pm Pacific).
What's the outcome of this meeting?
participants (8)
-
Alan de Freitas -
Andrey Semashev -
Ion Gaztañaga -
Louis Tatta -
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -
Robert Ramey -
Vinnie Falco -
Zach Laine