Hello Boost Community, My name is Kristen. Admittedly, I am not the most active participant on the boost mailing list. However, I do serve on the Boost Foundation Board of Directors as Board Chair. It is lovely to e-meet you; Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to get to know you better during the course of my tenure. Recently, we became aware of a letter that was circulated to the Boost developer community. The Boost Foundation Board of Directors have penned the following note in response to that letter. _____________________________________ Dear Boost Community Members, Recently, Mr. Falco distributed a letter indicating intent to a) rescind his offer of hosting a new boost.org website, b) retract his agreement to retire the @BoostLibraries account on X in favor of the established @Boost_Libraries, c) create a new set of Boost mailing lists on boost.io, and d) attempt to purchase the boost.org domain name from Beman Dawes’s estate. While we are surprised and saddened by this turn of events, we agree with Mr. Falco that cutting ties between the C++ Alliance and the Boost Foundation is in everyone’s best interests. That being said, we want to acknowledge Mr. Falco and his employees’ tremendous contributions toward a modernized Boost website and significant investment in maintaining and extending the Boost Libraries. On March 28th, 2024, the Foundation voted to point the boost.org domain name at Mr. Falco’s new site. Given that we had every intention to move forward we were shocked to hear that Mr Falco felt we were “holding [his] work hostage.” The Boost Foundation was entirely unaware of Mr. Falco’s attempts to purchase the boost.org domain name. We were not consulted until it became clear to Mr. Falco that to proceed with the transaction, he would need the login credentials for the domain name provider. At that point, Mr. Falco did contact a board member requesting the credentials, which were not provided to him. We were hesitant to discuss these events publicly, but since Mr. Falco has openly described his attempts to purchase the boost.org domain name, this public response seems appropriate. The fact that he took these steps without coordinating with—or even notifying— the Boost Foundation, has shaken our confidence in the Alliance and Mr. Falco. While we very much appreciate Mr. Falco's financial investment, nonprofits like Boost are not—nor should they be—beholden to their largest financial contributors. We are committed to continuing to foster a collaborative environment where C++ developers can contribute great ideas to the open source community. Boost's consensus-based process is not always the fastest way to the best result, but it is consistent with that commitment. Ideally, Mr. Falco would be interested in contributing financially to a worthy cause without assuming control over the Libraries, but his letter indicates otherwise. Therefore, we agree with Mr. Falco’s assessment that there is no viable path forward for further coordination between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation. We do, however, wish Mr. Falco and the Alliance all the best in their continued efforts to improve the C++ ecosystem. Sincerely, The Boost Foundation Board of Directors
Dude, bro, no way. Why? I hate my life, mate. On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:59 AM Kristen Shaker via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Hello Boost Community,
My name is Kristen. Admittedly, I am not the most active participant on the boost mailing list. However, I do serve on the Boost Foundation Board of Directors as Board Chair. It is lovely to e-meet you; Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to get to know you better during the course of my tenure.
Recently, we became aware of a letter that was circulated to the Boost developer community. The Boost Foundation Board of Directors have penned the following note in response to that letter.
_____________________________________
Dear Boost Community Members,
Recently, Mr. Falco distributed a letter indicating intent to a) rescind his offer of hosting a new boost.org website, b) retract his agreement to retire the @BoostLibraries account on X in favor of the established @Boost_Libraries, c) create a new set of Boost mailing lists on boost.io, and d) attempt to purchase the boost.org domain name from Beman Dawes’s estate. While we are surprised and saddened by this turn of events, we agree with Mr. Falco that cutting ties between the C++ Alliance and the Boost Foundation is in everyone’s best interests. That being said, we want to acknowledge Mr. Falco and his employees’ tremendous contributions toward a modernized Boost website and significant investment in maintaining and extending the Boost Libraries.
On March 28th, 2024, the Foundation voted to point the boost.org domain name at Mr. Falco’s new site. Given that we had every intention to move forward we were shocked to hear that Mr Falco felt we were “holding [his] work hostage.”
The Boost Foundation was entirely unaware of Mr. Falco’s attempts to purchase the boost.org domain name. We were not consulted until it became clear to Mr. Falco that to proceed with the transaction, he would need the login credentials for the domain name provider. At that point, Mr. Falco did contact a board member requesting the credentials, which were not provided to him.
We were hesitant to discuss these events publicly, but since Mr. Falco has openly described his attempts to purchase the boost.org domain name, this public response seems appropriate. The fact that he took these steps without coordinating with—or even notifying— the Boost Foundation, has shaken our confidence in the Alliance and Mr. Falco.
While we very much appreciate Mr. Falco's financial investment, nonprofits like Boost are not—nor should they be—beholden to their largest financial contributors. We are committed to continuing to foster a collaborative environment where C++ developers can contribute great ideas to the open source community. Boost's consensus-based process is not always the fastest way to the best result, but it is consistent with that commitment. Ideally, Mr. Falco would be interested in contributing financially to a worthy cause without assuming control over the Libraries, but his letter indicates otherwise. Therefore, we agree with Mr. Falco’s assessment that there is no viable path forward for further coordination between The C++ Alliance and The Boost Foundation. We do, however, wish Mr. Falco and the Alliance all the best in their continued efforts to improve the C++ ecosystem.
Sincerely,
The Boost Foundation Board of Directors
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 6/26/24 3:32 PM, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote: Could you provide a link/copy of the letter you're responding to? Robert Ramey
On 26/06/2024 23:32, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
Hello Boost Community,
My name is Kristen. Admittedly, I am not the most active participant on the boost mailing list. However, I do serve on the Boost Foundation Board of Directors as Board Chair. It is lovely to e-meet you; Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to get to know you better during the course of my tenure.
Recently, we became aware of a letter that was circulated to the Boost developer community. The Boost Foundation Board of Directors have penned the following note in response to that letter.
I suspect like most folks I've being trying to studiously stay out of the politics. I only note that the new website is now looking very good and certainly deserves to made use of, but I would also hate to see Boost fragment in any way. So... while I'm hoping it's not too late for you all to be sending each other flowers, perhaps it is also a good time to discuss who should hold the boost.org domain? As long as Beman was alive that was a no-brainer, and the Boost Foundation seemed like a logical successor. But given that Kristen is only being introduced to us now, perhaps it's focus is now too much elsewhere? If so that would be a shame, and should not be taken as meaning the Alliance would be a better owner either. And it should clearly not be a single person (far too mortal). So it's is a puzzle for sure. Hoping for a sudden outbreak of goodwill yours, John.
On 27/06/2024 19:45, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
On 26/06/2024 23:32, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
Recently, we became aware of a letter that was circulated to the Boost developer community. The Boost Foundation Board of Directors have penned the following note in response to that letter.
I suspect like most folks I've being trying to studiously stay out of the politics.
I think it unfortunate that the Boost Foundation chose to respond with yet another escalation. Somebody needs to stop escalating.
I only note that the new website is now looking very good and certainly deserves to made use of, but I would also hate to see Boost fragment in any way.
I agree with John that now that the new Boost website is pretty much done it seems wasteful and unnecessary to throw it away. Surely there is a way here - given we are all supposed to be adults - to get this over the line?
So... while I'm hoping it's not too late for you all to be sending each other flowers, perhaps it is also a good time to discuss who should hold the boost.org domain? As long as Beman was alive that was a no-brainer, and the Boost Foundation seemed like a logical successor. But given that Kristen is only being introduced to us now, perhaps it's focus is now too much elsewhere? If so that would be a shame, and should not be taken as meaning the Alliance would be a better owner either. And it should clearly not be a single person (far too mortal). So it's is a puzzle for sure.
The Boost Foundation and all its many predecessors have had a long history of appointing people who would be unknown to most, if not all, the Boost library developers. There were originally good reasons for that - we here us devs did the dev work, and the non-dev side of things did the admin, money, training, conference, legal and infrastructure stuff. For obvious reasons, there was historically not a lot of overlap as most devs don't much care for non-dev stuff. I guess the question becomes has there been a material change, and should there be a material change? How would the devs like the non-dev stuff to be implemented? My vote would be for the C++ Alliance and Boost Foundation to figure something out. After all, they are supposed to be adults and supposedly both do - in the end - have similar goals (supporting Boost). Niall
Recently, we became aware of a letter>> that was circulated to the Boost>> developer community. The Boost>> Foundation Board of Directors have penned>> the following note in response to that letter.
Dear Boost Community Members,
Recently, Mr. Falco distributed a letter indicating> intent to a) rescind I had hoped for this topic to be partiallyresolved in a smaller circle of expertsoffline. As a Boost developer, I'd like theseconflicts to be resolved offline and witha bit more open (to each other, yet private)discussion. A bit of open source communicationis welcome. But we are projecting a bitof an uncoordinated and negative imageat the moment.
If there is a way to resolve the main pointsof conflict offline, I'd plead for that to beattempted.
Kindest regards, Christopher.
On Thursday, June 27, 2024 at 10:28:16 PM GMT+2, Niall Douglas via Boost
On 26/06/2024 23:32, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
Recently, we became aware of a letter that was circulated to the Boost developer community. The Boost Foundation Board of Directors have penned the following note in response to that letter.
I suspect like most folks I've being trying to studiously stay out of the politics.
I think it unfortunate that the Boost Foundation chose to respond with yet another escalation. Somebody needs to stop escalating.
I only note that the new website is now looking very good and certainly deserves to made use of, but I would also hate to see Boost fragment in any way.
I agree with John that now that the new Boost website is pretty much done it seems wasteful and unnecessary to throw it away. Surely there is a way here - given we are all supposed to be adults - to get this over the line?
So... while I'm hoping it's not too late for you all to be sending each other flowers, perhaps it is also a good time to discuss who should hold the boost.org domain? As long as Beman was alive that was a no-brainer, and the Boost Foundation seemed like a logical successor. But given that Kristen is only being introduced to us now, perhaps it's focus is now too much elsewhere? If so that would be a shame, and should not be taken as meaning the Alliance would be a better owner either. And it should clearly not be a single person (far too mortal). So it's is a puzzle for sure.
The Boost Foundation and all its many predecessors have had a long history of appointing people who would be unknown to most, if not all, the Boost library developers. There were originally good reasons for that - we here us devs did the dev work, and the non-dev side of things did the admin, money, training, conference, legal and infrastructure stuff. For obvious reasons, there was historically not a lot of overlap as most devs don't much care for non-dev stuff. I guess the question becomes has there been a material change, and should there be a material change? How would the devs like the non-dev stuff to be implemented? My vote would be for the C++ Alliance and Boost Foundation to figure something out. After all, they are supposed to be adults and supposedly both do - in the end - have similar goals (supporting Boost). Niall _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 28/06/2024 17:42, Christopher Kormanyos via Boost wrote:
Recently, we became aware of a letter>> that was circulated to the Boost>> developer community. The Boost>> Foundation Board of Directors have penned>> the following note in response to that letter.
Dear Boost Community Members, Recently, Mr. Falco distributed a letter indicating> intent to a) rescind I had hoped for this topic to be partiallyresolved in a smaller circle of expertsoffline. As a Boost developer, I'd like theseconflicts to be resolved offline and witha bit more open (to each other, yet private)discussion. A bit of open source communicationis welcome. But we are projecting a bitof an uncoordinated and negative imageat the moment.
If there is a way to resolve the main pointsof conflict offline, I'd plead for that to beattempted.
+1, That would seem to be a very level headed and excellent suggestion. John.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 19:23, John Maddock via Boost
On 28/06/2024 17:42, Christopher Kormanyos via Boost wrote:
Recently, we became aware of a letter>> that was circulated to the
Boost>> developer community. The Boost>> Foundation Board of Directors have penned>> the following note in response to that letter.
Dear Boost Community Members, Recently, Mr. Falco distributed a letter indicating> intent to a)
I had hoped for this topic to be partiallyresolved in a smaller circle of expertsoffline. As a Boost developer, I'd like theseconflicts to be resolved offline and witha bit more open (to each other, yet private)discussion. A bit of open source communicationis welcome. But we are projecting a bitof an uncoordinated and negative imageat the moment.
If there is a way to resolve the main pointsof conflict offline, I'd
rescind plead for that to beattempted.
+1, That would seem to be a very level headed and excellent suggestion.
+1 Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Dear Boost Community Members,
Dear Mrs. Shaker, thank You for updating us on the status of the website. Your e-mail raises a few questions for me which I hope You can address swiftly.
Recently, Mr. Falco distributed a letter indicating intent to ... d) attempt to purchase the boost.org domain name from Beman Dawes’s estate.
Am I correct that Beman Dawes (God rest his soul) passed away in december of 2020? Didn't the boost website go dark in 2022 when the domain expired? Why didn't the boost foundation - as the custodian of the boost website - take action to buy it then? I actually was under the impression that the domain was owned by the boost foundation until recently, so I was somewhat surprised to learn about Vinnie Falco's attempt to buy it.
While we are surprised and saddened by this turn of events, we agree with Mr. Falco that cutting ties between the C++ Alliance and the Boost Foundation is in everyone’s best interests.
Can You please elaborate how this is in the best interest of the boost developer community?
The Boost Foundation was entirely unaware of Mr. Falco’s attempts to purchase the boost.org domain name. We were not consulted until it became clear to Mr. Falco that to proceed with the transaction, he would need the login credentials for the domain name provider.
Why was it that the boost foundations, who's primary service to the boost community is the provision of the website did not consider acquiring it from the estate in 2020 or 2022? Why do You think that Mr. Falco should have made you aware of the purchase more than three years after it became part of the estate and over a year after the dns made it apparent?
While we very much appreciate Mr. Falco's financial investment, nonprofits like Boost are not—nor should they be—beholden to their largest financial contributors.
Can You please specify what You are referring to when You say "Boost" here? The Boost Foundation? The Boost Developer community?
We are committed to continuing to foster a collaborative environment where C++ developers can contribute great ideas to the open source community. Boost's consensus-based process is not always the fastest way to the best result, but it is consistent with that commitment. Ideally, Mr. Falco would be interested in contributing financially to a worthy cause without assuming control over the Libraries, but his letter indicates otherwise.
Again, are You referring to the Boost Foundation or the Boost Community when You say "Boost"? Can You please elaborate how Mr Falco's actions are indicative of him trying to take control over the boost developer community or the boost libraries? He seems dissatisfied with the work the Boost Foundation is delivering regarding a new website, which he licensed under BSL. That does not sound like evidence of a control attempt. Furthermore there I am unaware of any evidence of him trying to control any of the code or review process. From what I can tell, he has always followed proper review procedure. Do You have evidence to the contrary? Can You please provide anything but the reference to a letter that substantiates your claim of "assuming control"? I would also like to know what the Boost Foundation actually owns that would make it a representative and/or custodian of Boost.
From what I can tell it owns none of the below things
- The Logo (Rene Rivera [I think]) - The Website (Rene Rivera ) - The Domain (unless it was acquired from the estate by now) - The Name (does the boost foundation own a trademark?) What is the nature of the relationship between the boost foundation and the boost community? Is there any legal connection? If the Boost Foundation (which You represent) claims to represent the interests of the boost developer community, it represents my interests as a boost developer. It is in my interest to have correct and accurate information as it pertains to the workings of the boost community, which are at this point in time facilitated to the website & mailing lists. Thus, I would kindly ask You to address my questions & concerns publically in a timely manner. Thank You for caring about open source C++. Sincerely, Klemens Morgenstern
El 28/06/2024 a las 18:22, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost escribió:
I would also like to know what the Boost Foundation actually owns that would make it a representative and/or custodian of Boost. From what I can tell it owns none of the below things
- The Logo (Rene Rivera [I think])
I think the current logo is (C) Zoltan Juhasz. Joaquín M López Muñoz
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:22 AM Klemens Morgenstern via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Your e-mail raises a few questions for me which I hope You can address swiftly.
I think it would be good for the board to collect everyone's questions and thoughtfully respond as a unit. For anyone else who has questions, please also ask!
On 6/29/24 15:45, David Sankel via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:22 AM Klemens Morgenstern via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Your e-mail raises a few questions for me which I hope You can address swiftly.
I think it would be good for the board to collect everyone's questions and thoughtfully respond as a unit. For anyone else who has questions, please also ask!
Given that the board considers collaboration with The C++ Alliance impossible, I would be interested in the Boost Foundation's view on the future of the key elements of Boost infrastructure, in particular: - Boost website - Mailing lists - File downloads. Specifically, I'd like to see the Boost Foundation's proposal on the future evolution of these elements, whether with or without The C++ Alliance involvement. In your reply, please be constructive and more to the point. I'm less interested in the political and corporate noise, but rather interested in the practical steps that the board is proposing to take to evolve the infrastructure. In particular, to resolve the situation with the website.
On Saturday, June 29, 2024 7:45:27 A.M. CDT David Sankel via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:22 AM Klemens Morgenstern via Boost <
boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Your e-mail raises a few questions for me which I hope You can address swiftly.
I think it would be good for the board to collect everyone's questions and thoughtfully respond as a unit.
I'm sure that is wise. However, while the board is pondering as a unit, it would be helpful if Kristen would at least respond to Robert Ramey's question: On Thursday, June 27, 2024 12:49:35 P.M. CDT Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 6/26/24 3:32 PM, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
Could you provide a link/copy of the letter you're responding to?
Thanks, -Steve
Hi All,
Thank you all for being so active and engaged and thank you for giving us
some time to read and respond to your questions.
While we will be responding to most of the inquiries soon, I felt it
important to address this question immediately; We don't think it would be
appropriate for us to circulate a copy of Mr. Falco's letter. Our letter
summarized the salient points that we felt required a response from us.
I wouldn't object to Mr.Falco or someone who received the letter sharing it
on this list, but I didn't write the letter so I don't feel I have the
right to share it.
Warm Regards,
Kristen
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 12:11 AM Steven Robbins
On Saturday, June 29, 2024 7:45:27 A.M. CDT David Sankel via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:22 AM Klemens Morgenstern via Boost <
boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Your e-mail raises a few questions for me which I hope You can address swiftly.
I think it would be good for the board to collect everyone's questions and thoughtfully respond as a unit.
I'm sure that is wise. However, while the board is pondering as a unit, it would be helpful if Kristen would at least respond to Robert Ramey's question:
On Thursday, June 27, 2024 12:49:35 P.M. CDT Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 6/26/24 3:32 PM, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
Could you provide a link/copy of the letter you're responding to?
Thanks, -Steve
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 6:06 PM Kristen Shaker via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
We don't think it would be appropriate for us to circulate a copy of Mr. Falco's letter.
In the time-honored tradition of the mailing list, I posted a private message as a quick response to an emotionally heightened situation. Hopefully you will all relate, forgive, and recognize that this message likely does not reflect my current thinking now that some time has passed. Thank you for showing discretion in maintaining the privacy of my personal communications. Regards Vinnie P.S. Inline replies are preferable to top-posting ( https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html)
On 6/30/24 6:26 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 6:06 PM Kristen Shaker via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
We don't think it would be appropriate for us to circulate a copy of Mr. Falco's letter.
In the time-honored tradition of the mailing list, I posted a private message as a quick response to an emotionally heightened situation. Hopefully you will all relate, forgive, and recognize that this message likely does not reflect my current thinking now that some time has passed. Thank you for showing discretion in maintaining the privacy of my personal communications.
Regards Vinnie
I don't get why it's not OK to share the letter but it is OK to publicly respond to it. In any case, the letter is available to anyone who's interested. In spite of reading posts and news regarding this situation, I don't feel I understand whats going on. And truth be told, I'm not as interested as one might think. Robert Ramey
participants (13)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Christopher Kormanyos -
Claudio DeSouza -
David Sankel -
Joaquin M López Muñoz -
John Maddock -
Klemens Morgenstern -
Kristen Shaker -
Mateusz Loskot -
Niall Douglas -
Robert Ramey -
Steven Robbins -
Vinnie Falco