Boost Asset Stewardship Review Result
Dear Boost developers and users, This concludes the Boost Asset Stewardship review was conducted between 09/03 and 09/22. I want to thank everyone who submitted a review and everyone who otherwise contributed to the discussion. What follows is my review result. For fairness and for the record, this is my connection to all parties involved: For the Boost C++ libraries I am or have been: - A Boost library author, - A maintainer of at least three Boost libraries, - A contributor to at least ten other Boost libraries, - A review manager of at least two Boost reviews, - A release manager, - A maintainer of the Boost GitHub organization, - A moderator of the Boost mailing lists, For the Boost Foundation I am or have been: - A former member of the Boost Steering Committee - A director on the board, For the C++ Alliance I have been: - A volunteer that helped review project specifications and resumes, On behalf of the Boost community, I accept the C++ Alliance Fiscal Sponsorship proposal with the following condition: - The new committee should be named something which clearly indicates that its purpose is confined to Boost's assets or infrastructure. There should be no confusion or question over whether it has any control or even other influence over the C++ library development. Please avoid any mention of "Steering" or "Direction". I accept the three initial members of the committee as proposed (Ion, Rene, Joaquin) without reservations. All three are Boost developers whom I respect and I am confident of their ability and their desire to serve the Boost community. While I appreciate the invitation to join, and would otherwise never refuse an opportunity to help Boost, I feel like my making the acceptance decision of the founding committee should prohibit me being on that list. The reviews and the discussion has convinced me that the Fiscal Sponsorship model is the right choice for Boost going forward. - It provides us with the financing we need now, and secures a very credible path for depending on them going forward. Moreover, it puts the administration of those resources in the hands of those representing our community. The Foundation can and has tried to achieve the same thing, but it should be obvious that it does not have the same level of financial resources, or technical and legal expertise at its disposal. - It has the support of a great majority of the Boost community. It is no secret that there has been a growing rift between the Boost developers and some of the Foundation members, despite my and others best attempts at healing it. Even with the same resources provided to the Foundation, I don't see it achieving the same level of acceptance and consensus that the C++ Alliance has. I want to thank the C++ Alliance for crafting this proposal, and giving us a solution for supporting those parts of Boost infrastructure that are increasingly expensive and complex to manage. This will allow the rest of us to focus on what we love doing: Working on C++ libraries. And I would be remiss if I did not repeat my gratitude to the C++ Alliance and to Vinnie for those times in the past he has come to Boost's rescue, many of these at my request. Next, I want to thank all present and past members of the Foundation and the Steering Committee for their service to the Boost project. Especially, I want to thank Michael Caisse for all the time and energy he has dedicated over the years to supporting the parts of Boost site and mailing lists that we take for granted. On that same note I want to thank the Foundation for agreeing to this review and committing to its result. If nothing else, I hope this act alone demonstrates to the community that despite past events, the intention of the Foundation is to act in accordance with the community's wishes. I would also like to make it known that I will submit a suggestion in the next meeting that the Boost Foundation rename itself to not include the word "Boost". Ultimately, it will come down to a vote between the board members, but I believe this is the best thing for the Foundation. Just as the rename from BoostCon to C++Now enabled the conference to achieve its goals of reaching the broader C++ community, the hope is that this will similarly enable the Foundation to succeed with its current mission, which spans beyond Boost. Finally, I want to repeat my thanks to the community for their voice in this review. While the list above of my involvement in Boost might seem significant, it really is not. I have contributed a small fraction of what some of the people who participated in this review have. But all of us are here because we are invested in Boost and want it to succeed more than it has already. And I hope that the decision above will help Boost do just that. Sincerely, Glen
On Sep 27, 2024, at 5:28 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost
Dear Boost developers and users,
This concludes the Boost Asset Stewardship review was conducted between 09/03 and 09/22. I want to thank everyone who submitted a review and everyone who otherwise contributed to the discussion. What follows is my review result.
[snip] Thank you, Glen, for running the review. — Marshall
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 5:29 PM Glen Fernandes via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
There should be no confusion or question over whether it has any control or even other influence over the C++ library development. Please avoid any mention of "Steering" or "Direction".
The terms "Steering Committee" and "Directions Group" carry negative
Once again, I am reminded of the experts who reliably inform me that marketing efforts are pointless. Yet here we are subtly accepting that the presentation of a thing should be crafted to manipulate the reader's mind :) Hopefully we will not need another formal review to decide on a new name, so I have taken the liberty to ask the all-knowing AI for advice: C:\Users\Vinnie>ollama run llama3.1:latest political connotations, as they suggest a greater level of control over the project than what is actually possible. Suggest twenty other short names for a group of people who represent a project in the context of a non-profit fiscal sponsorship which are equivalent yet do not suggest any powers beyond those designated. Here are twenty alternative name suggestions for a group that represents a project in the context of a non-profit fiscal sponsorship, without implying undue control: 1. **Project Liaison Team** - emphasizes collaboration and communication 2. **Project Ambassadors** - suggests advocates for the project 3. **Core Project Team** - focuses on key team members 4. **Project Stewards** - implies care and oversight, not control 5. **Advisory Board Members** - positions them as advisors, not decision-makers 6. **Key Stakeholders Group** - emphasizes importance, but not power 7. **Project Champions** - suggests enthusiasm and support 8. **Steering Group Alternatives:** * **Project Guidance Team** * **Project Oversight Committee** * **Project Coordination Group** 9. **The Project Council** - implies a gathering of ideas and perspectives 10. **Project Representatives** - simple, yet effective 11. **Fiscal Sponsorship Team** - highlights the sponsorship aspect directly 12. **Project Advocacy Group** - emphasizes advocacy over control 13. **Project Facilitators** - suggests helping facilitate project progress 14. **Support Team Members** - positions them as supportive helpers 15. **The Project Core** - implies essential, not controlling elements 16. **Governance and Oversight Committee (minus "Steering")** 17. **Project Guidance Council** 18. **Key Players Group** - emphasizes their role in the project's success 19. **Advisory Team Members** - advisors, not decision-makers 20. **The Project Forum** - a space for discussion and collaboration 21. **Player's Club** - suggestive that its members are high-status My personal vote is for number 21. Thank you very much for the work that went into managing the review, and thank you to everyone who participated :) Regards
El 28/09/2024 a las 2:28, Glen Fernandes via Boost escribió:
Dear Boost developers and users,
[...]
- The new committee should be named something which clearly indicates that its purpose is confined to Boost's assets or infrastructure. There should be no confusion or question over whether it has any control or even other influence over the C++ library development. Please avoid any mention of "Steering" or "Direction".
Boost Commons? (Not my original idea, this popped up in offline conversations.) Joaquin M Lopez Munoz
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 9:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:42 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Boost Commons? (Not my original idea, this popped up in offline conversations.)
Obvious answer: "The Three Amigos"
LOL.. But doesn't age well. My serious suggestion is Executive Committee.
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 9:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost
wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:42 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Boost Commons? (Not my original idea, this popped up in offline conversations.)
Obvious answer: "The Three Amigos"
LOL.. But doesn't age well. My serious suggestion is Executive Committee.
That's yet another synonym of "Steering Committee". The only sensible suggestion from the list so far was "Project Representation". Representation Group, maybe?
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 17:16 Peter Dimov via Boost
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 9:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:42 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Boost Commons? (Not my original idea, this popped up in offline conversations.)
Obvious answer: "The Three Amigos"
LOL.. But doesn't age well. My serious suggestion is Executive Committee.
That's yet another synonym of "Steering Committee".
The only sensible suggestion from the list so far was "Project Representation". Representation Group, maybe?
+1 for Representation Group. Regards, &rzej;
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Saturday, September 28, 2024, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 17:16 Peter Dimov wrote:
The only sensible suggestion from the list so far was "Project Representation". Representation Group, maybe?
+1 for Representation Group.
Representation Group sits exceedingly well with me. Glen
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:22 PM Glen Fernandes via Boost
On Saturday, September 28, 2024, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 17:16 Peter Dimov wrote:
The only sensible suggestion from the list so far was "Project Representation". Representation Group, maybe?
+1 for Representation Group.
Representation Group sits exceedingly well with me.
Sure, why not. :-) -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
Thinking more directly about assets/property aspects there's "Boost Trustees". As trustee is precisely defined to "holds title to property for the benefit of another". -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 2:48 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Thinking more directly about assets/property aspects there's "Boost Trustees". As trustee is precisely defined to "holds title to property for the benefit of another".
I like these "Asset Wizards" "Trustee Wizards" Thanks
El 28/09/2024 a las 17:16, Peter Dimov via Boost escribió:
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 9:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost
wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:42 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Boost Commons? (Not my original idea, this popped up in offline conversations.)
Obvious answer: "The Three Amigos"
LOL.. But doesn't age well. My serious suggestion is Executive Committee. That's yet another synonym of "Steering Committee".
The only sensible suggestion from the list so far was "Project Representation". Representation Group, maybe?
"Boost Trustees" seems to me to convey the right meaning: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trustee Joaquin M Lopez Munoz
El 28/09/2024 a las 18:54, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost escribió:
El 28/09/2024 a las 17:16, Peter Dimov via Boost escribió:
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 9:52 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost
wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:42 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Boost Commons? (Not my original idea, this popped up in offline conversations.)
Obvious answer: "The Three Amigos"
LOL.. But doesn't age well. My serious suggestion is Executive Committee. That's yet another synonym of "Steering Committee".
The only sensible suggestion from the list so far was "Project Representation". Representation Group, maybe?
"Boost Trustees" seems to me to convey the right meaning:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trustee
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz
The group/amigos are only in charge of the representation for fiscal-sponsorship related aspects. Fiscal Sponsorship Committee/Group sounds straightforward to me, to make clear this group has no other duty than that. Best, Ion
participants (8)
-
Andrzej Krzemienski
-
Glen Fernandes
-
Ion Gaztañaga
-
Joaquin M López Muñoz
-
Marshall Clow
-
Peter Dimov
-
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-
Vinnie Falco