Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03
Everyone, The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next week, September 3rd. For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf Also attached to this email as: CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST). A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list. The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone to participate. The official review start announcement email next week will detail the process for participation. Thank you, - Glen
pt., 30 sie 2024 o 02:55 Glen Fernandes via Boost-announce < boost-announce@lists.boost.org> napisał(a):
Everyone,
The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next week, September 3rd.
For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html
The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf
Also attached to this email as: CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf
The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST).
A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list.
The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone to participate. The official review start announcement email next week will detail the process for participation.
Thank you for the announcement. I have a couple of procedural questions. I understand that the reviews and the discussion can go to the Boost Developers list, right? Typically, for the library reviews we were instructed to prefix the email title with the reviewed library name, so that it is easier for the Review Manager to notice all the relevant messages. Do we have a tag like this in this case? Shall I use "Boost Asset Stewardship Review", or is "stewardship" just fine? I am also not clear what the subject of the review is. At a high level I understand that there are two organizations with different visions competing for some form of control over Boost, but what exactly that "some form of control" is I am not sure. Are we talking about the ownership of servers, infrastructure software, logos, domains? Or legal representation? Or are we also deciding on introducing new bodies, like a "steering committee"? I would appreciate it if this was clarified in the review announcement. Regards, &rzej;
Hi Andrzej,
I have a couple of procedural questions. I understand that the reviews and the discussion can go to the Boost Developers list, right?
Correct, reviews should go to the Boost developer list.
Typically, for the library reviews we were instructed to prefix the email title with the reviewed library name, so that it is easier for the Review Manager to notice all the relevant messages. Do we have a tag like this in this case? Shall I use "Boost Asset Stewardship Review", or is "stewardship" just fine?
"Asset Stewardsip Review" or "Asset Stewardship". When people see individual review mails independently of the review announcement, the desire is that they not mistake that the review is about governance about the C++ library development.
I am also not clear what the subject of the review is. At a high level I understand that there are two organizations with different visions competing for some form of control over Boost, but what exactly that "some form of control" is I am not sure.
Are we talking about the ownership of servers, infrastructure software, logos, domains? Or legal representation? Or are we also deciding on introducing new bodies, like a "steering committee"? I would appreciate it if this was clarified in the review announcement.
We are talking about ownership, payment, and management of the following assets, that require financial support: - The boost.org domain - The website hosting - The mailing lists - The downloads (storage and CDN) For reference, the Boost Foundation currently owns and pays for the following: - The rackspace which provides hosting and mailing lists It manages the following, but technically (see Kristen's email) does not own it yet: - The boost.org domain Beman was the owner of the domain. The Boost Foundation is working with his widow to transfer ownership to it. The C++ Alliance pays for and manages the following: - The Drone CI - The CDN for Boost downloads - Technical assistance for the Boost release process - Backup domain names in case boost.org expires (boostlibraries.org) - The hosting and download archives for the new website Note the content of the current boost.org website as well as the boost.io website is still decided by the Boost developer community. The fiscal sponsorship proposal from the C++ Alliance that begat the review: 1) is a legal agreement where the C++ Alliance holds assets on behalf of the Boost project. It proposes a newly formed (steering) committee that would be composed of Boost library authors and contributors that would determine how the assets are used. 2) donates the assets that it funds to the Boost project (domains, hosting, etc.) I have asked Vinnie to provide us with a high level summary of the agreement that will appear in the forthcoming review announcement (but he is free to post it here in advance of it). We have one alternative proposal by the Boost Foundation, which asks that the community consider letting it continue to be the steward of the aforementioned Boost assets, but with an intention to change how it will manage those assets going forward. Glen
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 11:24 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I have asked Vinnie to provide us with a high level summary of the agreement that will appear in the forthcoming review announcement (but he is free to post it here in advance of it).
The subject of the review is the C++ Alliance fiscal sponsorship proposal, which put simply looks like this: 1. A legal agreement (“Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement”) where C++ Alliance holds assets on behalf of the Boost project. The Steering Committee, formed as a result of this agreement, determines how these assets are used. The C++ Alliance will donate its Boost-related assets such as domain name, logo, and trademarks to the project. 2. Boost Foundation to donate assets to the Boost project. This consists of the boost.org domain name, social media accounts, and existing infrastructure (such as the wowbagger server and the cloud services it uses) plus any trademarks. A fiscal sponsor is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which takes on one or more projects (referred to as a “Model A” sponsorship). These projects are not represented by a legal entity, and by having a fiscal sponsor they get access to the sponsor’s administrative resources to ensure regulatory compliance. This is an enormous benefit, as the project leaders can focus on pursuing its mission rather than becoming experts at holding board meetings and filing paperwork. A “Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement” is a legal contract which defines the relationship between the fiscal sponsor and the project. With permission from the Software Freedom Conservancy, we have used their original contract as a starting point. This contract specifies that Alliance holds the assets for the project while the project’s leadership decides how they are used. Furthermore, the project can decide at any time to terminate the agreement and select a different fiscal sponsor to hold the assets. A previous version of this proposal advised the usage of the Boost Software Commons, an already-existing 501(c)(3), to serve as a new governance entity for Boost using project-aligned individuals as board members. However upon further analysis, the fiscal sponsorship solution is better for the project. Serving as a non-profit board member is quite frankly a hassle, as this requires that a Boost developer also become an expert in regulatory compliance, rules of order for meetings, and other administrative duties, in addition to taking on liability. Offloading these responsibilities to the fiscal sponsor allows Boost developers to focus on the project. Learn more about fiscal sponsorship here: https://www.501c3.org/what-is-a-fiscal-sponsor/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_sponsorship Thanks
pon., 2 wrz 2024 o 20:56 Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> napisał(a):
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 11:24 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I have asked Vinnie to provide us with a high level summary of the agreement that will appear in the forthcoming review announcement (but he is free to post it here in advance of it).
The subject of the review is the C++ Alliance fiscal sponsorship proposal, which put simply looks like this:
1. A legal agreement (“Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement”) where C++ Alliance holds assets on behalf of the Boost project. The Steering Committee, formed as a result of this agreement, determines how these assets are used. The C++ Alliance will donate its Boost-related assets such as domain name, logo, and trademarks to the project.
2. Boost Foundation to donate assets to the Boost project. This consists of the boost.org domain name, social media accounts, and existing infrastructure (such as the wowbagger server and the cloud services it uses) plus any trademarks.
A fiscal sponsor is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which takes on one or more projects (referred to as a “Model A” sponsorship). These projects are not represented by a legal entity, and by having a fiscal sponsor they get access to the sponsor’s administrative resources to ensure regulatory compliance. This is an enormous benefit, as the project leaders can focus on pursuing its mission rather than becoming experts at holding board meetings and filing paperwork.
A “Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement” is a legal contract which defines the relationship between the fiscal sponsor and the project. With permission from the Software Freedom Conservancy, we have used their original contract as a starting point. This contract specifies that Alliance holds the assets for the project while the project’s leadership decides how they are used. Furthermore, the project can decide at any time to terminate the agreement and select a different fiscal sponsor to hold the assets.
A previous version of this proposal advised the usage of the Boost Software Commons, an already-existing 501(c)(3), to serve as a new governance entity for Boost using project-aligned individuals as board members. However upon further analysis, the fiscal sponsorship solution is better for the project. Serving as a non-profit board member is quite frankly a hassle, as this requires that a Boost developer also become an expert in regulatory compliance, rules of order for meetings, and other administrative duties, in addition to taking on liability. Offloading these responsibilities to the fiscal sponsor allows Boost developers to focus on the project.
Learn more about fiscal sponsorship here:
Glen, Vinnie, Thanks for these explanations. They are very helpful. Regards, &rzej;
Asset Stewardsip Review Transparency: * I have worked for years with both sides of this review, forged bonds on technical and personal levels and never even cared about that. * I have been (on several occasions) offered money by the Committe for my perpetual work on Boost.GSoC, yet refused categorically to accept any money. I operate as in independent reseacher and developer. I have no financial ties with any thing, entity or ogranization whatsoever when engaging in FOSS. My popular text-book Real-Time C++ is not affiliated with Boost nor with the C++ Alliance. Here is my review of the proposed Boost.AssetStewardsipReview ## What is your evaluation of the design? The design from the C++ Alliance is lucidly clear with good structure. This makes the proposed Boost.AssetStewardsipReview from the C++ Alliance easy to use. I will categorically accept it below. Their description is simultaneously quite clear, powerful and transparent. The transparancy revolves around evactly extracted data regarding both trends in Boost (sadly negative developer participation) as well as monetary funding, seemingly at an all-time high. Intuitively, I appreciated much more the congenial, all-encompassing style and rhetoric of the Committee. The emphasis on community and steady continuity came through loud and clear. This reached me on a personal level and is much more consistent with my personal style than that style so far revealed by the the Alliance. As a long-time contributor, that moved me, so much that it was almost on an emotional level. Yet when using, developing, promoting and ultimately funding Boost, we need hard motion forward. And this forward motion comes with the somewhat harder edges and forward-moving rehetorical style of the Alliance. ## What is your evaluation of the implementation? Excellent. A few suggestions for potential evolution of Boost.AssetStewardsipReview. Get your rhetoric on posts, communications and stylistic aspects to be more congenial. This subjective observation can be interpreted however you want it to be, but I would prefer more mild tones. The strong, progressive forward-motion of the Alliance, tempered with a more congeinal style reminiscent of the Committee would have been a perfect match. Repeatedly, and publicly I called both sides out to form a feeble, united common front. Yet failure to do so causes us to choose door number 1 or door number 2. I select the C++ Alliance proposal. I would like to see some evidence of a future which ushers in a long-term period of peace. I do not want some lurking thing named the Beman project to cause petty, dissent for years to come. So please deal with that (or whatever it will be) presently and refrain from straining us and dividing us over this in the future. ## Operational aspects The C++ Alliance has brought our potency and quality to a level seemingly unreachable without them. We have CI/CD that actually runs. Docs, Libs and productive things associated with them are working. We have highly exacting consumers in all areas. In my areas of Math and Multiprecison, we would be weaker and poorer without the drive, funding and expertise of the C++ Alliance. In testing, new aspects of coverage, fuzzing, pure-portability hands-down are better than ever. And honestly prior to the advent of the Alliance, these somewhat rudimentary quality aspects seemed unatainable. Now it's an everyday thing. With the C++ Alliance, we simply live the quality lifestyle in our code and deliver it to the clients. Boost libraries are showing improved quality with Code Coverage reports and statistics. Although this adds no real functionality, I think it helps prove overall quality. When compiling, I really enjoy using advanced compiler warnings. Two of my favorites on GCC are -Wconversion and -Wsign-conversion. When using these, I find progress from the C++ Alliance with still al lot of work to go. The C++ Alliance embraces these rudimentary quality attributes and pays for them to get done. Providing evidence of running modern syntax checker(s) might improve confidence in all of oure libraries and/or reduce the libraries' vulnerability. The C++ Alliance seems committed to this essential goal. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? It's great. The C++ Alliance proposal cleared up all goals and wiped doubts regarding tranparency off the table. This proposal is lucidly clear. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the Boost.AssetStewardsipReview? Exceptionally high. Use the C++ Alliance and and embrace their Boost.AssetStewardsipReview - Did you try to use the Boost.AssetStewardsipReview? Yes daily and it just works. What compiler? Did you have any problems? Yes absolutely. They support the normal stuff. Of course still weak on deeply embedded targets, but everyone is. I tried with MSVC 2019, 2022, GCC 11-13 No issues. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Years. And I grow weary of the back-and-forth on the lists. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Not really. I have no concern whatsoever about the financial nor the legal aspects of this proposal. On a personal level, I found it highly disturbing to have this conflict dragged into my face on essentially a daily basis. Please resolve this. I have written many programs and applications based on and using Boost. That development activity is hindered by the constant unrest on the boards. So deal with it, adapt and get a consistent approach. ## Do you think the C++ Alliance proposal should be accepted? Yes! Christopher Kormanyos On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 02:55:55 AM GMT+2, Glen Fernandes via Boost-announce <boost-announce@lists.boost.org> wrote: Everyone, The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next week, September 3rd. For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf Also attached to this email as: CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST). A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list. The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone to participate. The official review start announcement email next week will detail the process for participation. Thank you, - Glen _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-announce
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 2:53 PM Christopher Kormanyos wrote:
On a personal level, I found it highly disturbing to have this conflict dragged into my face on essentially a daily basis. Please resolve this. I have written many programs and applications based on and using Boost. That development activity is hindered by the constant unrest on the boards. So deal with it, adapt and get a consistent approach.
## Do you think the C++ Alliance proposal should be accepted? Yes!
Christopher, thank you for the review. Glen
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 11:53 AM Christopher Kormanyos via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
A few suggestions for potential evolution of Boost.AssetStewardsipReview.
Get your rhetoric on posts, communications and stylistic aspects to be
more congenial. This subjective observation can be interpreted however you want it to be, but I would prefer more mild tones.
I understand; If the C++ Alliance is to play a bigger role in Boost it is important for me to be mindful of how I communicate. It took a while but I do now understand that contributors prefer to hear technical discussion rather than politics and drama, and I hope it is accurate to say that my recent communiques reflect this. Thank you very much for contributing a review. Regards
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:00 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 11:53 AM Christopher Kormanyos
Get your rhetoric [...] to be more congenial I understand; [...]
Hi. Or just have a more consensual community manager do the talking instead of you? Like Joaquin perhaps? Just a thought... We have a saying in French: "Chassez le naturel, et il revient au galop". --DD
participants (5)
-
Andrzej Krzemienski -
Christopher Kormanyos -
Dominique Devienne -
Glen Fernandes -
Vinnie Falco