El 06/09/2024 a las 14:31, John Maddock via Boost escribió:

Inclusivity

[...]

[...] And of course inclusivity also extends further than gender: to non-native English speakers to name but one.

I'm very glad that you raised the issue of participation barriers for people with low (or no) English skills. Being a non-native English speaker myself, language inclusivity (not to be confused with inclusive language) has always interested me. The topic has not been discussed very often here, perhaps, if I may venture, because it does not rank high in the Anglosphere's political debate. For example, participation in the project from people from East Asian countries is very low in proportion to their usage of C++ and Boost, which I think can be largely attributed to linguistic barriers. Some countries from the area (China, Japan) struggle to increase English proficiency among their citizens, with limited success. There are brave efforts to bring Boost closer to local audiences, such as boostjp from Akira Takahashi and others: https://boostjp.github.io/index.html which provides documentation in Japanese on Boost and some of its libraries, plus a study group and an online forum oriented to Japanese-speaking developers. This effort should be recognized, supported and linked from boost.org, IMHO. It would be great if we started a conversation on how we can make Boost more accessible and appealing to developers who are not fluent enough in the English language to engage in the project in its current form. Possibly by reaching out first to the people running boostjp and similar initiatives. Joaquin M Lopez Munoz

In Poland, where I come from, we were taught as children at that time that you should learn English in order to get a decent job, and so many of us did. But even then, when I joined a couple of discussion groups, I had a hard time understanding the discussion group jargon: FWIW, AFAICT, IMHO, LOL. Now, add to that C++-specific acronyms: can NTBS cause UB as NTTPs? Even now, after years of participation, I have trouble understanding new acronyms as they come. From the recent discussions on the future of Boost, I collected: BDFL, OG, SJW. I also had a hard time even googling terms " bussin" and "fam". As a native English speaker (from England!) those mean absolutely nothing to me either!

I know some communities address this by publishing a list of acronyms and jargon words they use.

That's actually an excellent idea: it would help not only non-English speakers, but also new students getting involved in C++ for the first time. John.

I have no idea what "bussin" and "fam" mean /strictly bool feeble { true }; if (boost == fam){  then_stick_together(feebly);} Christopher

On Saturday, September 7, 2024 at 07:11:37 PM GMT+2, Seth via Boost wrote: On Fri, Sep 6, 2024, at 11:30 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:

In Poland, where I come from, we were taught as children at that time that you should learn English in order to get a decent job, and so many of us did. But even then, when I joined a couple of discussion groups, I had a hard time understanding the discussion group jargon: FWIW, AFAICT, IMHO, LOL. Now, add to that C++-specific acronyms: can NTBS cause UB as NTTPs? Even now, after years of participation, I have trouble understanding new acronyms as they come. From the recent discussions on the future of Boost, I collected: BDFL, OG, SJW. I also had a hard time even googling terms " bussin" and "fam".

I struggled and learned all of these (and many many more) the hard way. The thought never entered my mind that my not being a native speaker had anything to do with it. I just always assume others have learned the hard way too. Which they probably do (how could there there be any other way?). I have no idea what "bussin" and "fam" mean /strictly/ but I never needed to know exactly either. I have come to the conclusion that part of the appeal of slang is that it can be fuzzy/imprecise so that it can converge to a new popular meaning by association. I'm happy just associating. But please don't use them in any kind of formal/important communication :)

I know some communities address this by publishing a list of acronyms and jargon words they use.

That can certainly help. cppreference.com has added a few canonical articles (thinking of ADL, NSMI, SIOF). The Marshall Clow FAQ and FQA contained many of these too, I think they have a new home on isocpp.org if memory serves? Just my $0.02 Seth _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 9:06 PM Tom Kent wrote:

After reviewing both proposals, I would like to vote in favor of the C++ Alliance proposal.

Tom, thank you for the review. Glen

El 07/09/2024 a las 6:47, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost escribió:

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 9:24 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...

- Enrich the SC with the addition of Glen Fernandes and Peter Dimov. This is the reason I'm replying to this email now instead of waiting to say this in my review. I support, and echo, that sentiment.

As a member of the proposed SC, I also support this motion. Joaquin M Lopez Munoz

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

I also perceive that Boost’s vitality has declined, although mailing list posts might have declined in part because “high frequency” interactions moved to Slack and some technical bug discussions to Github issues. The mailing list remains the method for more formal interactions.

It is true that many new libraries skip Boost now. Possible reasons:

a) The technical level required to pass a review in Boost is very high

Hmm, maybe this was true more in the past. I've been less than impressed with more recent Boost reviews where it's basically, "Wow, I've never heard of Redis until 10 minutes ago but this library seems great!". But to this end, I put the blame on the review wizards for allowing reviews where there's a strong lack of expertise by the reviewers.

I also prefer to set aside controversial issues like Codes of Conduct (who defines “hate”/”harassment”/” inappropriate”? who enforces it? etc.), because I don’t think will help increase participation in the project.

A Code of Conduct shouldn't ever be controversial, especially because Boost has already had a de facto one for decades. https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html The problem is, if you named this code-of-conduct.html, it triggers a visceral reaction such as Andrey chudding out quite badly in my review thread. This kind of stuff just simply makes Boost look bad and incompatible with the modern programming landscape and culture. llvm and Linux both have codes of conduct and they're easily more important than Boost. A CoC is not the death of a project. - Christian

niedz., 8 wrz 2024 o 16:55 Vinnie Falco via Boost napisał(a):

On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 7:27 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

The problem is, if you named this code-of-conduct.html, it triggers a visceral reaction such as Andrey chudding out quite badly in my review thread.

The phrase "code of conduct" is never used generically, and usually carries with it certain expectations of a specific brand of toxic western politics. For example, the Beman Project, Clang/LLVM, and Carbon codes of conduct are similar (or identical?) and include this clause:

"In rare cases, violations of this code outside of these spaces may affect a person’s ability to participate within these spaces."

I admit I initially thought you were making this up, so I went and checked. And this statement is really there: https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/docs/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md I would have a request for people proposing the addition of a Code of Conduct to Boost that they specify if they mean: * The instructions for how to behave in Boost fora and mailing lists, or * Establishment of a body that punishes the individuals (e.g through banning them from participation) for not adhering to the rules, committing crimes, or performing actions in their private life that are deemed inappropriate. * Something else. Apparently, there are different interpretations of a "Code of Conduct". Regards, &rzej;

I am not particularly fond of these types of rules, and seeing them applied in Boost would make me reconsider my participation. There's a good reason: I've already been banned from the Carbon project for my "off-platform behavior." Not because I attacked anyone, but because I failed to sufficiently punish someone in the Official C++ Language Slack Workspace. And I recall a certain person who was banned from LLVM after years of contribution, because of a legal entanglement from fifteen years ago. They have done nothing wrong, yet they are banned from participation because "other people feel unsafe."

If someone bothers me, I can simply ignore them or use stronger technical means to avoid their content. I don't particularly like it when some person or group of people claiming "authority" decides for me who I can associate with. It is especially bothersome when governments do it. For example, by demanding that tech companies deplatform people from certain countries. Minimizing someone's position by calling it a "chud out" is not only dismissive but it is tone deaf to the damage caused when the people who make up the rules go on witch hunts for political enemies. This not only damages contributors but also hurts the projects where it happens. If one were so inclined they might compare the quality of technical discussions on Slack compared to a certain inclusive Discord with its comprehensive Code of Conduct and form a new opinion.

Thanks

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

I'd like to first begin by apologizing for being overly harsh and insulting to Andrey. I was angered deeply by what I perceived as him rejecting contributors for invalid reasons and unnecessarily gatekeeping. I'm deeply passionate about Boost and creating a thriving community of volunteers. Sometimes it gets the best of me in ways that reflect negatively on me and I own and acknowledge that. For what it's worth, something like the discussion policy that's being linked is exactly what I had in mind. I realize now that I did an incredibly poor job in communicating my intentions. My intentions are not to create a document used to persecute and start witch hunts. We're Boost, we can make whatever code we want and enforce it however we want. What I'm proposing is a simple vote to change the existing "policy" to "Code of Conduct" simply so we can check a box. It sounds trite and inane but, to me, it's a valuable rebranding that requires little to no actual effort on our part. We live in an era where people wanna see something called "Code of Conduct". It certainly wasn't my intention to stir up so much drama. I wrote my messages in somewhat of a haste and seemed to have caused a good bit of havoc. - Christian

As someone watching this from the sideline, I would say not adopting a document can be as much of a statement as adopting one. A code of conduct is as good as the people instituting them. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the proposed steering committee could craft an adequate code that is useful enough for the needs of both the existing members, as well as to the advantage of anyone who would like to participate in the project and may wonder about its policies? Is it to the benefit of the project to make a point of not providing a clearly defined code of conduct? I'm not saying this in support, or opposition of anyone. These documents are sort of an industry standard on this point. But I think the proposed steering committee should consider whether they could formalise a code that fits the desires of the boost community. It is important to bear in mind that not having a code is invariably in itself a statement too, considering the climate in of our industry. - Soda

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 6:54 AM Jakob Lövhall via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

Just to add a point of what people want, I, as a person, does not want anything called Code of Conduct. They are highly political and their presence makes me see the organization having it as highly politicised.

You should judge something by its content, and not by its name. But it seems like it's more effective from a psychological perspective to eschew the name because of its triggering effect on the Boost community. The goal is simple: attract newcomers by declaring we're a fair and open community, and that people will be free from harassment. We already technically have this, so the problem now shifts to one of prominence and discoverability. On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:06 PM [soda-pressed] via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

As someone watching this from the sideline, I would say not adopting a document can be as much of a statement as adopting one. A code of conduct is as good as the people instituting them. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the proposed steering committee could craft an adequate code that is useful enough for the needs of both the existing members, as well as to the advantage of anyone who would like to participate in the project and may wonder about its policies? Is it to the benefit of the project to make a point of not providing a clearly defined code of conduct?

To this point, we can simply do what the cpplang slack already does and have an Acceptable Use Policy. The AUP is basically a CoC without a CoC. I'm willing to psychologically game both sides of the field here. Much like C++, my leadership and vision for Boost comes with a forward progress guarantee. We can rebrand our current policy as an AUP and make it much more prominent and discoverable, likely starting at the github repo level and then working upwards. We live in an era where a younger generation of programmers has seen the toxicity in open-source and now we have an onus to convey that we are the welcoming community we claim to be. Will this actually yield results? Who knows. But experimentation is part of the fun. - Christian

This is such a leading question with no grounding on the premise above. Is it fair to say it is a quasi industry standard to have such documents in open sources projects? Yes. I'm not sure how you have drawn that repurposing an existing policy to a recognisable file name has any bearing on your suggestion that this may imply something about the views of potential candidates being smart/sophisticated/shallow or not. The question is simple: Can a code of conduct document can be accommodate the desires of the existing members, without allowing for abuse? - Soda

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:57 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:

Maybe this is a good time to actually revamp the document.

The way to do this is to file an issue in the old site or the new site: https://github.com/boostorg/website https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/ We do plan on implementing measures to make the mailing lists more discoverable by technically minded folks who are likely to contribute, and these are slated for next year at the earliest. We should improve the visibility of mailing list culture documentation before then. Thanks

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:47 PM David Sankel via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 2:57 PM Christian Mazakas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

Nope! It's like I said: it's about prominence, discoverability, and recognition.

It's about enforcement. A document called "strongly enforced code of conduct, all people are welcome, even and especially those from disadvantaged groups!!!!!.txt" taking up 25% of a website is going to be useless unless it is believed in and enforced by a community. Calling it something other than "code of conduct" because calling it "code of conduct" is offensive to 'some people' is a nice signal that a place should be avoided by 'those darn people always going on about inclusion'.

I am currently most a passive onlooker in this group, but for what it is worth I am 100% behind David Sankels remark above.

On 9/9/24 18:08, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:

I'd like to first begin by apologizing for being overly harsh and insulting to Andrey.

No offense taken.

On 9/8/24 17:27, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

I also prefer to set aside controversial issues like Codes of Conduct (who defines “hate”/”harassment”/” inappropriate”? who enforces it? etc.), because I don’t think will help increase participation in the project.

A Code of Conduct shouldn't ever be controversial, especially because Boost has already had a de facto one for decades.

https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html

The problem is, if you named this code-of-conduct.html, it triggers a visceral reaction such as Andrey chudding out quite badly in my review thread.

If you consider our current discussion policy as CoC then fine. I suppose, we don't need to change anything in this regard then, right? In my view it's not the same thing, though. A CoC is typically different both in form and effect. A CoC would typically use subjective terms such as "hate speech", "harrasment", "friendly", "welcoming" and "inclusive" to describe what is or isn't allowed. Then there would be a body who enforces the CoC. The interpretation of whether a communication or behavior adheres to the CoC would be left to that body, which opens opportunity for abuse and political infight. It may also be used as an instrument to enforce inclusivity agenda. At best, this results in sugar-coating or filtering opinions expressed during the discussion, at worst it can lead to banning people who disagree and refuse to follow these rules. I regularly read news about such issues in other projects, here are just a couple latest ones: https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/core_python_developer_suspended_coc/ https://discourse.gnome.org/t/updates-to-the-gnome-foundation-board-of-direc... I do not want to see anything like that in Boost.

On 9/17/24 23:29, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

Proposed changes to Boost Library Foundation bylaws. refer to: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view

Section 1. Powers and Duties. [...] The Board shall have the power

to control and manage policies

...

for acceptance of new Boost Software and the usage and maintenance

On 9/17/24 2:18 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote: thereof.

I would be strongly opposed to this. The Boost Foundation (or The C++ Alliance) never had and never should have the power to affect acceptance of new Boost Software, nor its maintenance. Library acceptance can only happen through the review process.

Board shall have the power to control and manage policies for acceptance of new Boost Software. Hmmm - This is not at all the same as having the board decide what software to accept. I wasn't suggesting that the Board/Foundation/whatever have such a power. The question arises as to what are the procedures for the acceptance of Boost Software. Currently, this is addressed by the formal review of library submissions. But what happens if we need to alter this. For example, I'm of the view that Boost Tools should be subject to formal review. The implementation of this policy would have to be in the hands of the board of directors - who else could it be? And of course issues related to testing/deployment etc would be handled similarly.

...

As can be seen, the intention here is to place the ultimate authority over boost in the hands of Boost Community Members who have actually invested personal efforts into the growth and success of boost. Once these changes to bylaws are implemented and a new Board of Directors is elected other issues can be addressed.

Boost Community has no power over The Boost Foundation, Right> so the only way this can be implemented is if The Boost Foundation agrees to these changes and effectively disbands itself.Right - resigns and stands for (re)election.

Among other things, I'm proposing that the board of directors be elected by the boost community. So the new board would be much more attuned to the procedures used by boost to achieve it's goals as specified by its mission statement. If these changes in the bylaws are implemented I would expect the current board to resign and/or stand for election. They've already indicated that they're interests do not lie with the Boost Community by asking that the C++ Alliance take over the administration of a number of Boost Assets and using their time to promote the Beman Project. So I would think that members of the current board would be happy to do this. FWIW - we often get repeated complaints that the Board of Directors don't represent the interests of Boost Developers. At least this would fix this.

I doubt this is going to happen. We'll see.

Robert Ramey>

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:

http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 3:11 PM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

I'm proposing that the board of directors be elected by the boost community.

So the new board would be much more attuned to the procedures used by boost to achieve it's goals as specified by its mission statement.

I think a lot of people, probably some in the Boost Foundation, do not have a firm grasp on the requirements of serving on a nonprofit board. Generally speaking, each member of a board of directors has three duties: loyalty, obedience, and care: https://boardsource.org/resources/legal-duties-nonprofit-board-members/ The Boost community members who serve on the Foundation Board of Directors work hard, and they are dedicated. And I have concerns about the effectiveness of their governance. Serving on a non-profit board comes with significant responsibilities. Each director is expected to act in the best interests of the organization, ensure compliance with laws and regulations, and make decisions in good faith and a reasonably prudent manner. Directors are supposed to know the laws, rules, and requirements, as they are legally liable for the activities of the corporation. Unfortunately, the Foundation board may not be meeting these expectations. For instance, new members are added without proper orientation or documentation, such as articles of incorporation, bylaws, or a copy of the letter of determination. Some directors miss meetings or fail to provide written notice, which is a breach of fiduciary responsibilities. New board members are not provided with the materials to learn about Boost or its culture. I also think the Foundation board meets too often for the wrong reasons, leading to "attendance fatigue." Board meetings should only occur when necessary, such as for full financial disclosures or board-level decisions. Agendas routinely include trivial matters that do not need a board meeting to address. For example launching a Discourse server. Career board members such as those who serve on many non-profit boards simultaneously, may not want to be bothered with most of the things listed in the meeting minutes. I believe there are too many Foundation board members. What is the purpose of having so many? Most activities can continue without them being board members. I suspect many of the Foundation board members are not aware of their exposure to legal liability. Having more board members does not lead to better decisions; it can actually make decision-making more difficult due to conflicting interests, reduced accountability, decreased motivation, voting dynamics, and difficulty in finding common ground. I say these things, not to criticize the Boost Foundation, as their annual revenue of less than $50,000 qualifies for simplified reporting requirements (Form 990-N). Rather, I point this out to drive an important point home: to serve properly on a board of directors and to run a non-profit requires ongoing commitment of time and energy to understand the organization and the non-profit regulations. For Boost's modest needs there is no reason to have an expansive non-profit board of directors, as the requirements of the project with respect to managing shared assets are largely constant. This is why we dropped the "Boost Software Commons" governance by a new nonprofit from our proposal. I realized that the very last thing Boost volunteers want to do is take on the responsibilities of serving on a non-profit board. If Boost is to have sound governance by community members, we must ensure they are set up to succeed at the tasks set upon them. This means minimizing the amount of administrative (i.e. non-technical) red tape. Getting a bunch of engineers from all over the world, who speak different languages, to meet physically on a Zoom call once per month to conduct business in a way that satisfies regulatory compliance is a setup for failure. Being a Boost Community member does not magically imbue someone with the desire or the ability to serve effectively on a non-profit board. Having more board members does not lead to better decisions. In fact the opposite is true. As a board grows in size it faces increased difficulty to make decisions because of conflicting interests, reduced accountability, decreased motivation, voting dynamics, and difficulty in finding common ground. The same principle also applies to the proposed Steering Committee. It should be small, where everyone knows each other, and members can easily hold the other members accountable by voting them out if necessary. The C++ Alliance used the law firm of Adler & Colvin to create and submit the filing for receiving our tax-exempt letter of determination. They specialize in charities who contribute to open source, and their lawyers have pioneered the establishment of case law which demonstrates that contributions to open-source projects like Boost serve the public interest. Gregory Colvin wrote the definitive book on fiscal sponsorships, which you can check out here: https://fiscalsponsorship.com/auto-draft/fiscal-sponsorship-6-ways-3rd-editi... Adler & Colvin has a useful resource to help people who join a non-profit board understand their responsibilities: https://www.adlercolvin.com/what-every-nonprofit-board-member-should-know-2/ I feel strongly that the fiscal sponsorship model is best for Boost, as it delegates the fixed costs of running a non-profit board to people who are already set up to handle it. Before the Boost Foundation, the Software Freedom Conservancy fulfilled this role. They had the benefit of an economy of scale, as they could leverage "board reuse" to service multiple projects at the same time. Our proposal suggests using the C++ Alliance's non-profit board to shoulder the administrative burdens. The scale of the Alliance income and expenses is such that we have already deployed significant infrastructure to ensure regulatory compliance (a mountain of paperwork and two law firms). To put it simply, the fiscal sponsorship model allows the Boost project to decide what is best in terms of governance without forcing C++ programmers to become experts at non-profit boards. Phew... I have two questions: Robert, why do you prefer having library authors become experts at nonprofits, instead of using a fiscal sponsorship model like Software Freedom Conservancy which worked for years? And, I would kindly ask the review manager to confirm that the statements I made regarding the Boost Foundation board members and meetings are accurate. Thanks

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 7:34 PM Glen Fernandes wrote:

Correct me if I have misinterpreted.

I am so sorry. Upon re-reading my post, I realize now that in my efforts to edit for tone as I am now in the habit of doing, my communication became vague. I'll ask specifics: 1 Does the criteria for adding Boost Foundation board members include experience serving on a board of directors? 2 Are new board members given written materials or resources which explain their obligations and expectations? 3 Do new board members go through an orientation meeting to familiarize them with company and Boost culture? 4 Are new board members made aware of the duty of care, duty of loyalty, and duty of obedience to the nonprofit? 5 Are new board members made aware that they can be held personally liable for a breach of fiduciary duty [1]? 6 Do new board members receive instructions on how to ensure their activity does not expose them to personal liability? 7 Are board members covered by liability insurance? 8 Are new board members provided with a copy of the articles of incorporation as part of an onboarding process? 9 Are new board members provided with a copy of the bylaws as part of an onboarding process? 10 Are new board members provided with a copy of the letter of determination which explains what donations and activities are tax-exempt? 11 Do new board members perform due diligence on the Boost Foundation's financial and governance affairs to ensure that the organization they are joining is in compliance? 12 Are new board members provided with links or documents which explain the state and federal regulations which the nonprofit must comply with? 13 Does the board hold a meeting at least once per year where the Treasurer provides full written disclosure of all financial activities, and where all board members attend? 14 Are board members who miss three meetings in a row, or sustain an absence for 3 months or longer, required to submit a reason in writing ahead of time? 15 Are board members made aware that a director cannot carry out their duty of care without attending meetings and reading materials provided at and in advance of meetings? 16 Are new board members informed that the main tax laws governing the Boost Foundation charity are listed under section 501(c)(3) and operating as a public charity (versus private operating foundation)? 17 What is the process for familiarizing new board members with the rules for self-dealing? 18 What is the process where new board members fill out their conflict of interest forms and those documents are retained? Thanks [1] https://charitableallies.org/board-liability

El 17/09/2024 a las 22:29, Robert Ramey via Boost escribió:

Speaker at the Boost Conference currently named C++Now

Sorry, but I would never define a C++Now speaker as a "member of boost community". I think the only Boost talk from C++Now 2024 was about Boost.Parser. Boost.MP11 in 2023 and zero Boost talks in 2022. Best, Ion

On 9/18/24 2:15 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:

wt., 17 wrz 2024 o 22:29 Robert Ramey via Boost napisał(a):

...

On 8/30/24 4:10 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...

Update: The Boost Foundation proposal mentioned in the original announcement has been published.

The Boost Foundation proposal is attached to this email: BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf

A link to the above will also be available in the review commencement email that will be posted on 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

The original announcement email included an attachment of the above: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257569.php

Here is my review.

From BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf

"Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal To continue carrying out the Alliance vision to revitalize Boost, a change in governance is needed. Our proposal is straightforward: ● The C++ Alliance becomes the fiscal sponsor for Boost under the terms of the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement provided in Appendix 1. ● The C++ Alliance receives eligible donations for Boost, or donates directly to Boost, and custodies ownership of Boost’s resources which currently include domain names, trademarks, and a server. ● The Steering Committee determines how resources are used. This developers-first approach leverages the useful sponsorship model already developed by the Software Freedom Conservancy, and allows the C++ Alliance to minimize the risks incurred when making large investments in the project."

I recommend rejection of this proposal.

I believe that the best way forward for boost is to reform the current Boost Foundation while maintaining it's authority over Boost assets.

"Boost Assets" include but are not the following:

a) Boost.org domain name. b) mail/testing servers. c) mailing list d) Stewardship of C++Now conference and revenues generated there from. e) Other assets

Some definitions:

a) Boost Library Foundation The Boost Library Foundation is the 501(c)3 non-profit behind the Boost C++ Libraries, the C++Now conference, and the Boost C++ Standardization Effort. The current bylaws of the Boost Library Foundation can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view

b) C++ Alliance Described here: https://cppalliance.org

c) Boost Mission - I've synthesized this from reviewing the original boost home page, the boost library foundation home page and C++ alliance boost.io page.

Development of high quality, expert reviewed, legally unencumbered, open-source libraries advancing and disseminating software development best practices.

d) Boost Software * either library code or tool * distributed as C++ code. * subjected to the Boost Formal Review process and accepted under Boost rules

e) Boost Assets * boost.org domain name * mailing list * various servers for hosting, test, etc. * boost logo * other assets

f) Boost Community Member * Author of Boost Software * Officially recognized maintainer of Boost Software * Author of documentation of Boost Software * Participant as a reviewer in a Boost Formal Software Review * Speaker at the Boost Conference currently named C++Now * others to be determined

Proposed changes to Boost Library Foundation bylaws. refer to: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgtEovxMZThszuaQIMpDpaRdBuH1_BkZ/view

ARTICLE II BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Section 0. Membership. Members of the board of directors shall be members of the Boost Community.

Section 1. Powers and Duties. Except as otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation or these bylaws, the Board shall have the general power to control and manage the affairs and property of the Foundation and shall have full power to adopt rules and regulations governing the conduct of the Foundation’s affairs and actions of the Board. The Board shall have the power to control and manage policies for acceptance of new Boost Software and the usage and maintenance thereof.

Section 3. Election and Tenure. The members of the Board of Directors shall be elected by Boost Community Members. ...

Other changes to made as necessary to be consistent with the above.

Note: I don't see anything in here which would support projects like the Beman project as part of Boost. So any formal connection between Boost Foundation and Beman Project should be severed.

As can be seen, the intention here is to place the ultimate authority over boost in the hands of Boost Community Members who have actually invested personal efforts into the growth and success of boost. Once these changes to bylaws are implemented and a new Board of Directors is elected other issues can be addressed. I don't intend to discuss any of these issues here other than to mention them to give a better idea of how I expect Boost to function with the above changes.

a) replacement of traditional Boost Discussion Policy with a "Code of Conduct"

b) assignment of responsibility for administration of Boost to external parts such as C++ Alliance and/or perhaps others.

c) implementation of policies requiring the formal review of all Boost Software and procedures. Currently, much of boost is maintained/developed/deployed on personal initiative of boost community members without restraint and/or responsibility of the Boost Foundation Board of Directors. I would hope that the new board would define procedures which would subject these kinds of procedures to more formal review by the general membership. Specifically, I see opportunities for improvement in procedures for building/testing/deployment of Boost Software and I would like to see big improvements in this area. As far as I know, this is the only proposal which will provide a means to permit this to happen.

d) I would hope that by "resetting" the board of directors with a new constituency, mission and authority would result in the crafting of a new framework which would make it possible to delegate some of the effort to managing boost to the C++ Alliance. I would also hope that by guaranteeing that recognition and some authority to boost authors and maintainers, we might make it more attractive for more volunteers - particularly boost library maintainers.

The original proposal presented a simple binary option. (paraphrasing) Hand over assets to C++ Alliance or ... (do nothing?).

You are proposing modifications -- which I admit I do not fully understand -- but, the way I understand the process here, I think they are immaterial to the outcome of this review.

The only possible outcomes of this review could be: * Modify the status quo by accepting the Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal. * Modify the status quo by accepting the Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal with modifications suggested during the review. * Keep the status quo.

Right. I question the legitimacy of this process. Offering this (tri)binary choice is a false choice in this instance. In my view, these options don't address the real issues faced by Boost and it's Governance. Glen is free and might be justified in rejecting this review as "not a review". Note that coincidently, we seem to have a similar problem in our current presidential election.

While the Boost Foundation asks the Boost developer community to consider their "alternative", I understand that the outcome of this review can in no way oblige the Boost Foundation to implement their alternative.

Actually, I don't understand what the Boost Foundation "alternative" actually consists of. Perhaps you might consider adding one more alternative the list you posted above: * Keep the status quo and modify the bylaws to enhance represenation of the Boost Community. Robert Ramey

On 9/18/24 10:55 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:14 PM Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

Perhaps you might consider adding one more alternative the list you posted above:

* Keep the status quo and modify the bylaws to enhance represenation of the Boost Community.

Once upon a time, actually multiple times IIRC, I "complained"about the lack of Boost developer representation in the Foundation/BSC. My complaints resulted in a fluctuation to increase the representation. Unfortunately that had zero perceptible effect on the operation and actions of the Foundation/BSC. Hence I would discount such an alternative as incomplete as it's functionally equivalent to the current state.

I always felt your complaints had at least some merit and that in parts motivates my proposal. This begs the question: If the current board is misguided and ineffective, and having more representation on the part of the benefactors (the Boost Community), that what is to be done? I still believe that electing board members from the boost community would be an improvement over the current system. Robert Ramey