On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 11:43 PM Niall Douglas via Boost
On 08/08/2024 23:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
Recently the Boost Foundation offered the community two choices of organizations for stewardship of Boost's shared resources: itself, and The C++ Alliance. The project needs a decision, in order that its future may be determined.
The Formal Review Process is typically called upon to answer the question of whether a library should be accepted into the collection. I have proposed that we use the same process to determine the question of stewardship. It is not perfect, yet it is both familiar and enduring.
Although there are two designated review wizards, one is unavailable and the other is traveling. And review wizards have never been called upon to oversee non-library reviews.
Therefore, I would like to add a formal review to the calendar for the following days, inclusive:
Monday August 19, to Wednesday, August 28
Lots of Europeans are on their annual vacation in August and could not participate. We generally haven't done peer reviews in August as a result. Better to wait until September therefore.
Also, we are missing a bit. Normally there is a proposed Boost library for everybody to study and comment upon. Here we also need something for everybody to study and comment upon, otherwise the exercise will be useless.
I think there's plenty of past interactions to study though.
We don't have the review managers manage the review of their own libraries for good reasons, so we can't do that here either.
Well, being on the board is different from being a director. And one would assume that a RM that is a member of the Boost Foundation board would be positively biased towards that foundation - just like an author is positively biased towards the inclusion of his library. Thus if the opposing party agrees (i.e. the CppAlliance) I don't see a problem.
Therefore it seems to me that somebody from the options before us needs to write a document for the community to study and comment upon. It would appear there are three camps: (i) C++ Alliance takes over entirely (ii) Boost Foundation retains everything (iii) something in between.
I think III is an "ACCEPT with CONDITIONS".
I would therefore propose that each camp produce a document arguing in favour of their option. Those three documents can then be the "library" under peer review.
I think there's plenty of communication, contributions & behaviour to review. I don't think a document would help a lot, as those would just be policy statements, which are essentially useless.
I appreciate all this is a bit novel. If this approach is seen as the right way forwards, I guess we'd then need volunteers to do the work of crafting the documents. But let's see if this approach is any good first.
Can you elaborate on what you'd expect to read in those docs?