Traditionally the formal reviews work like this:
* Exactly one proposal is considered Given what we are reviewing is an unprecedented and fundamental paradigm shift for the Boost community rather than an up or down vote on a library, it makes sense to me that we would adapt the review process to best suit the task at hand rather than limit ourselves to what has come before. Instead, we might focus solely on whether the Alliance is a suitable
replacement for the Foundation. If our review outcome indicates otherwise, future proposals can be decided in new reviews. This process is not about soliciting bids from multiple organizations, but rather preserving the ability to continue delivering proven results with existing leadership.
This process is largely about providing the developers with the agency to
make a decision regarding their governance. I think allowing them to put
forward proposals is part of facilitating that agency. Additionally, a
change in governance structure would be a huge and disruptive shift. It's
crucial that we do not find ourselves transitioning between different
governing structures every 6 months. I believe a longer than average review
process is in the best interest of the community. It is important that we
get this right and that may mean taking a little longer.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 3:04 PM Vinnie Falco
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Kristen Shaker via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I would encourage anyone with a competing proposal to submit it for review.
...
The idea of this is to come out of the proceedings with an unambiguous signal
Traditionally the formal reviews work like this:
* Exactly one proposal is considered * Anyone can participate in the review * Reviews can be submitted anonymously, or even privately * A review can contain anything (including, competing proposals) * Rejected proposals can always be resubmitted, with endorsement
The need for this formal review stems from a governance conflict which has lasted for quite a long time. The health and reputation of the project have been damaged, and the community deserves a timely resolution. We should review the proposal being offered and not wait for new proposals to materialize. If new information comes to light, the review manager can decide whether there are sufficient grounds that the proposal being considered should be rejected to give the community more time for consideration. And in this case, new proposals should use the same workflow: they are endorsed, and put on the review schedule. This ensures that every proposal subjected to review is fairly given the undivided attention of the reviewers, and that feedback from reviews (an essential component of the process) is focused on the submission and nothing else.
I'd like to merge my pull request which puts the review on the website calendar. Is there any reason I should not merge my addition to the calendar?
Thanks