Stewardship Review Request

newer
Getting Started with Modular Boost...

older
Modular Boost building next steps.

Vinnie Falco

8 Aug 2024 8 Aug '24

10:38 p.m.

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 Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task: Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board. Thanks

Show replies by date

Alan de Freitas

8 Aug 8 Aug

11:41 p.m.

I'd like to endorse the proposal. I think using the Formal Review Process is a good idea since it will be familiar to the community. I’m looking forward to the process and its outcome. Em qui., 8 de ago. de 2024 às 19:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> escreveu:

...

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

Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task:

Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov

If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board.

Thanks

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

-- Alan Freitas https://alandefreitas.github.io/alandefreitas/ https://github.com/alandefreitas

Mateusz Loskot

11:47 p.m.

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 00:38, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

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.

I'd like to endorse this proposal as empowering the Boost community.

...

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

As a representative of the Review Wizards, no objections. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

Glen Fernandes

11:49 p.m.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 6:38 PM Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

Although there are two designated review wizards, one is unavailable and the other is traveling --%<-- Therefore, I would like to add a formal review to the calendar for the following days, inclusive:

Since you already have direction from Mateusz in his email to make a change to the schedule, and you have the required endorsement: You can make the pull request to: https://github.com/boostorg/website/blob/master/community/review_schedule.ht... The format is: <tr> <td>Name</td> <td>Author</td> <td>Links</td> <td>Review Manager</td> <td>-</td> </tr> You can look at past commits to that file for more information. Glen

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

9 Aug 9 Aug

1:52 a.m.

Not that an endorsement matters given the other replies.. But I also endorse this course of action to determine the route to take. I've long wanted for all (or at least most) Boost decisions to happen in an open decisive method. And using the review process, or an adaptation, is perfect for this. I hope that this can be the start of a long history of community driven decisions. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

pdimov＠gmail.com

2:59 p.m.

Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task:

Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov

If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board.

Let me put it this way, I fully trust Glen to be able to manage this, or any other, review without having to resign from the board first.

Andrey Semashev

5:11 p.m.

On 8/9/24 17:59, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

Vinnie Falco wrote:

...
Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task:

Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov

If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board.

Let me put it this way, I fully trust Glen to be able to manage this, or any other, review without having to resign from the board first.

It might be ironic, but the review manager will eventually have to decide the fate of Boost based on the community response that may not be a clear "option 1" or "option 2". Given that Boost Foundation's mission is to resolve such deadlocks, it seems fitting for either of you to act as a review manager while still being members of the Foundation. :)

Vinnie Falco

6:05 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 7:59 AM Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

Let me put it this way, I fully trust Glen to be able to manage this, or any other, review without having to resign from the board first.

Until now, I've had only two regrets in life. One that I smoked cigarettes when I was younger, and two that I did not move to California from Miami sooner. Now I have a third regret, that I did not just listen to Peter all along. As I am finding it consistent that I can simply do what Peter says and save myself a bunch of effort trying to figure things out. As he is usually right about most things. Glen would you be willing to serve as review manager for this review? Thanks

Louis Tatta

6:11 p.m.

If at first you don’t succeed, try doing what Peter told you to do the first time.

...

On Aug 9, 2024, at 11:05 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 7:59 AM Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...
Let me put it this way, I fully trust Glen to be able to manage this, or any other, review without having to resign from the board first.

Until now, I've had only two regrets in life. One that I smoked cigarettes when I was younger, and two that I did not move to California from Miami sooner. Now I have a third regret, that I did not just listen to Peter all along. As I am finding it consistent that I can simply do what Peter says and save myself a bunch of effort trying to figure things out. As he is usually right about most things.

Glen would you be willing to serve as review manager for this review?

Thanks

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

Glen Fernandes

10:45 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 2:05 PM Vinnie Falco wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 7:59 AM Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...
Let me put it this way, I fully trust Glen to be able to manage this, or any other, review without having to resign from the board first.

Until now, I've had only two regrets in life. One that I smoked cigarettes when I was younger, and two that I did not move to California from Miami sooner. Now I have a third regret, that I did not just listen to Peter all along. As I am finding it consistent that I can simply do what Peter says and save myself a bunch of effort trying to figure things out. As he is usually right about most things.

Glen would you be willing to serve as review manager for this review?

I gave it some thought over the last few hours, and yes, I would be OK with managing the review. The hesitation was only in figuring out how we would run this in a way that would preserve Boost's reputation and that of everyone involved. I have some idea of the ground rules we would propose, but I would want to consult Peter, John, Ion, and Marshall to be sure. Glen Glen

Richard

3:34 p.m.

In article you write:

...

Therefore, I would like to add a formal review to the calendar for the following days, inclusive:

Monday August 19, to Wednesday, August 28

+1 for me. The formal review process seems appropriate. -- Richard -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline The Terminals Wiki http://terminals-wiki.org The Computer Graphics Museum http://computergraphicsmuseum.org Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com

Niall Douglas

3:43 p.m.

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. 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. 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 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 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. In any case, I would be surprised if those documents could be written, discussed internally by their camps, and then polished for presentation here before September. Niall

Klemens Morgenstern

3:54 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 11:43 PM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

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?

Niall Douglas

4:05 p.m.

On 09/08/2024 16:54, Klemens Morgenstern wrote:

...

...
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.

I think we need somebody to summarise the position and the pros and cons thoughtfully. Because most here won't have the time to do that. Without a central document, it just turns into a shouting match. How can anybody review that?

...

...
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.

I would guess those members who have never attended a meeting might not be so positive.

...

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.

They're useless to those "in the know". But I don't think the majority are in the know. I reckon a majority here could do with well written summaries to work from. Yes, that's pretty much a policy statement. All this is political, after all.

...

...
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?

Let's say: 1. At least three reasons why your camp should be chosen. 2. One reason for each of the other camps why it should not be chosen (and not more than that, no need to be negative). 3. What your camp commits and promises to do if another camp wins, for each of the other camps. I think section no. 3 is probably the most important if we want to end the schism and draw a line under all this. Niall

Andrey Semashev

5:05 p.m.

On 8/9/24 18:54, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 11:43 PM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...
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.

A review does need an object. A bunch of communications on the ML and behind the scenes do not qualify as one, IMO. I think, these two emails are a good starting point for such a document: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257346.php https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257347.php

Vinnie Falco

5:20 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:05 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

A review does need an object. A bunch of communications on the ML and behind the scenes do not qualify as one, IMO.

Yes, I have that prepared. Thanks

Niall Douglas

5:38 p.m.

On 09/08/2024 18:20, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:05 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
A review does need an object. A bunch of communications on the ML and behind the scenes do not qualify as one, IMO.

Yes, I have that prepared.

Would Kristen or Sankel like to prepare their side of things from the Boost Foundation? Niall

Vinnie Falco

13 Aug 13 Aug

5:16 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:38 AM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

Would Kristen or Sankel like to prepare their side of things from the Boost Foundation?

As we proceed with the review process to determine whether the Alliance should assume governance of the Boost project, I'd like to highlight some things. Since unpublished proposals inherit the context of the Foundation's questionable track record, it could be premature to entertain said proposals at this time. The Foundation has not presented any new ideas or plans since they voted (with just four board members) on June 12 to "cut ties with the Alliance." The two-month period that followed has resulted in unclear intentions and nothing concrete for addressing Boost's needs. Far from cutting ties, it is the Alliance that pays for Boost's download hosting. 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. Let's avoid perpetuating a narrative that could discourage others from future investments in big, risky Boost improvements by sending the wrong message about governance. Thanks

Christopher Kormanyos

5:34 p.m.

...

assume governance of the Boost project Can you form a (at first feeble) union and see how it shakes out after a while?

Christopher On Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 07:16:51 PM GMT+2, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 10:38 AM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

Would Kristen or Sankel like to prepare their side of things from the Boost Foundation?

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

5:56 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:34 PM Christopher Kormanyos via Boost wrote:

...

...
assume governance of the Boost project Can you form a (at first feeble) union and see how it shakes out after a while?

Note, "governance" in that statement is not an accurate term. It's closer to "stewardship" as the original subject of this thread mentions. Although it would be possible to form a "feeble union" (hope you meant organization) first. It's not practical at this time. As even in an embryonic state it needs a solid foundation. I hope that we can eventually, as in the near future, develop a developer driven steward organization that makes founded community driven decisions. But at this time we need to recognize that the current stewards are not, and have not, serves us well. For clarity, even though I'm on the board of the Alliance, the above is my opinion not an Alliance position. And it has been my position even before I was on the board of the Alliance. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Andrzej Krzemienski

10 Aug 10 Aug

1:13 p.m.

pt., 9 sie 2024 o 00:38 Vinnie Falco via Boost napisał(a):

...

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

Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task:

Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov

If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board.

One characteristic feature of a Boost Review Process, is that it is a one man's arbitrary decision whether a library is accepted to Boost or not. Other reviewers provide input and recommendations, but the decision is made solely by one man based on this man's judgement. I am not sure how this would work for the Stewardship issue. It looks to me that the question of the Stewardship is more like ellections, where decisions are made in the process or voting, which is the most civilized way known of solving the problem by using force. Regards, &rzej;

David Sankel

13 Aug 13 Aug

12:15 a.m.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:08 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

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.

The current process for making necessary directional decisions is securing consensus on the mailing list. Failing that, the Boost Foundation board is entrusted to make a decision for the community. Since Vinnie’s proposal is to replace the Boost Foundation with his non-profits, the status quo process is inadequate. John Phillips made good points https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257349.php about how the library review process, as typically run, isn’t ideally suited for organizational changes like this. Additionally, we’re giving a lot of power to exactly one (hopefully) trusted review manager. The alternative is a democratic process with voting. That has its own difficulties (Who gets a vote? How can fake votes be prevented?). In spite of its drawbacks I can’t think of anything better than a modified library review process. Here are some needed changes (negotiable, of course): 1. There should be a period (maybe a month) with a request for proposals. There are two (maybe three?) on the table and another I know of in development. These proposals should answer questions such as “What problems is this organizational change attempting to solve? How is this in line with Boost’s mission and values? What will the impact be for current volunteers? How does this proposal meet the changing needs of the Boost and wider C++ communities? What risks are there with this approach and how can they be mitigated? How will the greater C++ community react to this development?” 2. Proposal writers are encouraged to publish their proposals early and use feedback to refine them until the official review period is underway. 3. The proposals should be specific about how expenses will be financed, how decisions are made, and how decision makers will be put in place. 4. For fiscal entities, structure and bylaws should be stated. 5. All proposals should be reviewed during the same period. 6. The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized. 7. The review period should be longer than normal. Perhaps a three week period. The review manager should take into consideration feedback from all sources. We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it. -- David

pdimov＠gmail.com

6:20 a.m.

David Sankel wrote:

...

We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it.

Given that the 'review'/vote we'll be having will essentially be a referendum on Boost Foundation's legitimacy as governing entity of Boost, I'm not sure the above makes that much sense.

Joaquin M López Muñoz

7:28 a.m.

El 13/08/2024 a las 8:20, Peter Dimov via Boost escribió:

...

David Sankel wrote:

...
We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it. Given that the 'review'/vote we'll be having will essentially be a referendum on Boost Foundation's legitimacy as governing entity of Boost, I'm not sure the above makes that much sense.

I totally agree. If the Boost Foundation is interested in keeping an association with the Boost Project, they should be spending their time preparing a good sell for their case rather than trying to authorize/control the process. Joaquin M Lopez Munoz

David Sankel

1:54 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:50 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

David Sankel wrote:

...
We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it.

Given that the 'review'/vote we'll be having will essentially be a referendum on Boost Foundation's legitimacy as governing entity of Boost, I'm not sure the above makes that much sense.

Some think the Boost Foundation is illegitimate and others are unconvinced that a governance change occurred since the Steering Committee’s creation. The goal is to get all sides to agree to the governance review process outcome.

Ion Gaztañaga

8:10 a.m.

El 13/08/2024 a las 2:15, David Sankel via Boost escribió:

...

6.

The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized.

This could create a polarized, divisive environment that would not help be helpful. IMHO this should be discussed inside the Boost community, between people that actually participate in the Boost libraries project. Best, Ion

Andrey Semashev

8:42 a.m.

On 8/13/24 11:10, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...

El 13/08/2024 a las 2:15, David Sankel via Boost escribió:

...
6.

The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized.

This could create a polarized, divisive environment that would not help be helpful. IMHO this should be discussed inside the Boost community, between people that actually participate in the Boost libraries project.

I agree, the decision should be primarily after the Boost community, i.e. the people who will actually be affected by the decision. IMO, the wider C++ community should be made aware of the proceedings to avoid confusion regarding the Boost project, but comments from outside the project should be taken with a fair grain of salt, if at all. But, of course, weighting of opinions is the review manager's prerogative. Re. who constitutes the Boost community, it should obviously include library authors and maintainers, as well as people who regularly contribute to library and infrastructure maintenance. People affiliated with either party whose proposal is being reviewed should clearly state their affiliation in their reviews.

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell

3:14 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 3:43 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

On 8/13/24 11:10, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...
El 13/08/2024 a las 2:15, David Sankel via Boost escribió:

...
6.

The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized.

This could create a polarized, divisive environment that would not help be helpful. IMHO this should be discussed inside the Boost community, between people that actually participate in the Boost libraries project.

I agree, the decision should be primarily after the Boost community, i.e. the people who will actually be affected by the decision. IMO, the wider C++ community should be made aware of the proceedings to avoid confusion regarding the Boost project, but comments from outside the project should be taken with a fair grain of salt, if at all. But, of course, weighting of opinions is the review manager's prerogative.

Re. who constitutes the Boost community, it should obviously include library authors and maintainers, as well as people who regularly contribute to library and infrastructure maintenance. People affiliated with either party whose proposal is being reviewed should clearly state their affiliation in their reviews.

Indeed. An arrangement where the individuals that do not actively volunteer involved in the process that governs the active volunteers reduces the self agency of the volunteers. And eventually leads to demoralized volunteers which drives those volunteers away. It would escalate the current, and historical, issue of lack of volunteer self determination outside of just the library realm. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Kristen Shaker

3:20 p.m.

...

Would Kristen or Sankel like to prepare their side of things from the Boost Foundation?

With David's help, I'd be happy to put this together. Kristen proposed a binary choice I proposed the options that I could think of. As a fallible human being, I fully acknowledge and expect there might be alternative proposals that were beyond my comprehension at the time. 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 about the direction of the Boost Libraries leadership. IMO, that requires full consideration of all options. Warm Regards, Kristen On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:14 AM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 3:43 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...
On 8/13/24 11:10, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

...
El 13/08/2024 a las 2:15, David Sankel via Boost escribió:

...
6.

The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized.

This could create a polarized, divisive environment that would not help be helpful. IMHO this should be discussed inside the Boost community, between people that actually participate in the Boost libraries

project.

...
I agree, the decision should be primarily after the Boost community, i.e. the people who will actually be affected by the decision. IMO, the wider C++ community should be made aware of the proceedings to avoid confusion regarding the Boost project, but comments from outside the project should be taken with a fair grain of salt, if at all. But, of course, weighting of opinions is the review manager's prerogative.

Re. who constitutes the Boost community, it should obviously include library authors and maintainers, as well as people who regularly contribute to library and infrastructure maintenance. People affiliated with either party whose proposal is being reviewed should clearly state their affiliation in their reviews.

Indeed. An arrangement where the individuals that do not actively volunteer involved in the process that governs the active volunteers reduces the self agency of the volunteers. And eventually leads to demoralized volunteers which drives those volunteers away. It would escalate the current, and historical, issue of lack of volunteer self determination outside of just the library realm.

-- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

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

Vinnie Falco

17 Aug 17 Aug

7:03 p.m.

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

David Sankel

19 Aug 19 Aug

9:34 p.m.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 3:04 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

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?

Yes. The Boost Foundation is currently voting on a motion to utilize the library review process to decide the governance question which includes process suggestions. We should wait until that outcome. Additionally, I think it would be more appropriate for the review wizards (or their elected manager) to put the review on the website calendar with the decided dates. -- David

Kristen Shaker

11:16 p.m.

...

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 wrote:

...

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

Ion Gaztañaga

20 Aug 20 Aug

11:39 p.m.

El 20/08/2024 a las 1:16, Kristen Shaker via Boost escribió:

...

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.

Hi to all, The situation is becoming more confusing every day. 20 days ago the Foundation posted a message (signed by the Board) stating that "we feel the most appropriate thing to do at this juncture would be to let the developers make a decision on how they would like to proceed regarding what level of ownership the C++ Alliance should have on Boost Library assets" Note the phrase "let the developers make a decision". The Foundation clearly expressed that there are two available options (Alliance or Foundation) and a third option was not needed ("given that there are already many Boost Developers on the Boost Foundation Board of Directors, we don’t see this as a meaningful deviation from the status quo"). 20 days later members of the Foundation say there will be more options because they know at least one additional option is in development. But according to the previous logic, this additional option should be a "meaningful deviation from the status quo" or it should not be considered. But we do not know anything about it and the Foundation or its members have not disclosed any information to the developers. Some days ago we knew that "the Boost Foundation is currently voting on a motion to utilize the library review process to decide the governance question which includes process suggestions. We should wait until that outcome". But we have no information about this outcome and the board signed the original two option proposal. It's at least surprising that the Foundation made such a strong decision proposal and 20 days later members of the board think that "allowing them to put forward proposals is part of facilitating that agency trying". Is that a new position from the board or a personal opinion from board members? Minutes from the Foundation are not updated since June so we don't know if there is new information that justifies any new position from the board or its members. Additionally, Foundation board members considered that the decision should have "participation from the greater C++ community" and "the review manager should take into consideration feedback from all sources." which contradict the earlier "let the developers make a decision" from the board. It was announced that the Boost Foundation was having a meeting (past Thursday?) about the review process for the governance, but we have no information about the decisions taken on that meeting. This simply is not sustainable. It's not productive. We already have a trusted review manager (Glen), which is a Foundation board member, and a very active Boost developer. We have some initial information about the operational perspective both from David (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257346.php) and Vinnie (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257347.php), which must be completed before the review. The review was proposed initially for the next week (pull https://github.com/boostorg/website/pull/871/commits/55010d4fdcf87db98332da3...). So it seems that the C++ Alliance should already have a mature proposal (otherwise, C++ Alliance's proposal will be simply rejected). We also had some clarifications ("Misunderstandings about the Boost Foundation", https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257463.php) that the Foundation thinks it should be considered from developers during this process. I think it's evident that we have no new information that justifies additional delays. If anyone has an interesting proposal in a mature state, great, boost developers should know about it just now because it's time to decide and move to the next thing. According to our established review process, the review manager should finalize the schedule with the Review Wizard and the submitter. Please let Glen, Mateusz and Vinnie agree on that. I expect the usual 10 days period will be enough so that active boost developers (which are the ones the Foundation requested a decision from) can emit their opinions. In any case, according to the formal review process the review manager can ask the review wizard for permission to extend the review schedule if there are too few reviews or some new important information must be considered, so the review can be extended using the already established process if necessary. IMO the Foundation or the Alliance should not try to condition this developer decision that the same Foundation proposed 20 days ago and the Alliance agreed on. That ship has sailed. The review manager "shall check the submission to make sure it really is complete enough to warrant formal review" (https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html). If so, we should schedule the review on the following weeks and take a decision with the information we have, as no decision is the worst decision. If 6 months later we have newer information that requires a new review and a new change, so be it. Best, Ion

John Maddock

21 Aug 21 Aug

11:32 a.m.

...

The situation is becoming more confusing every day. 20 days ago the Foundation posted a message (signed by the Board) stating that "we feel the most appropriate thing to do at this juncture would be to let the developers make a decision on how they would like to proceed regarding what level of ownership the C++ Alliance should have on Boost Library assets"

Note the phrase "let the developers make a decision".

The Foundation clearly expressed that there are two available options (Alliance or Foundation) and a third option was not needed ("given that there are already many Boost Developers on the Boost Foundation Board of Directors, we don’t see this as a meaningful deviation from the status quo").

20 days later members of the Foundation say there will be more options because they know at least one additional option is in development. But according to the previous logic, this additional option should be a "meaningful deviation from the status quo" or it should not be considered. But we do not know anything about it and the Foundation or its members have not disclosed any information to the developers.

Some days ago we knew that "the Boost Foundation is currently voting on a motion to utilize the library review process to decide the governance question which includes process suggestions. We should wait until that outcome".

But we have no information about this outcome and the board signed the original two option proposal. It's at least surprising that the Foundation made such a strong decision proposal and 20 days later members of the board think that "allowing them to put forward proposals is part of facilitating that agency trying". Is that a new position from the board or a personal opinion from board members?

Minutes from the Foundation are not updated since June so we don't know if there is new information that justifies any new position from the board or its members.

Additionally, Foundation board members considered that the decision should have "participation from the greater C++ community" and "the review manager should take into consideration feedback from all sources." which contradict the earlier "let the developers make a decision" from the board.

It was announced that the Boost Foundation was having a meeting (past Thursday?) about the review process for the governance, but we have no information about the decisions taken on that meeting.

This simply is not sustainable. It's not productive.

We already have a trusted review manager (Glen), which is a Foundation board member, and a very active Boost developer. We have some initial information about the operational perspective both from David (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257346.php) and Vinnie (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257347.php), which must be completed before the review.

The review was proposed initially for the next week (pull https://github.com/boostorg/website/pull/871/commits/55010d4fdcf87db98332da3...). So it seems that the C++ Alliance should already have a mature proposal (otherwise, C++ Alliance's proposal will be simply rejected).

We also had some clarifications ("Misunderstandings about the Boost Foundation", https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257463.php) that the Foundation thinks it should be considered from developers during this process.

I think it's evident that we have no new information that justifies additional delays. If anyone has an interesting proposal in a mature state, great, boost developers should know about it just now because it's time to decide and move to the next thing.

According to our established review process, the review manager should finalize the schedule with the Review Wizard and the submitter. Please let Glen, Mateusz and Vinnie agree on that.

I expect the usual 10 days period will be enough so that active boost developers (which are the ones the Foundation requested a decision from) can emit their opinions. In any case, according to the formal review process the review manager can ask the review wizard for permission to extend the review schedule if there are too few reviews or some new important information must be considered, so the review can be extended using the already established process if necessary.

IMO the Foundation or the Alliance should not try to condition this developer decision that the same Foundation proposed 20 days ago and the Alliance agreed on. That ship has sailed.

The review manager "shall check the submission to make sure it really is complete enough to warrant formal review" (https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html).

If so, we should schedule the review on the following weeks and take a decision with the information we have, as no decision is the worst decision. If 6 months later we have newer information that requires a new review and a new change, so be it.

Thank you Ion, this is very well written, and sums up the situation nicely. I wholeheartedly agree. We need to move along with the this. John.

Vinnie Falco

3:04 p.m.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 4:32 AM John Maddock via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

We need to move along with the this.

I get the sense that they are at least pointed in the right direction, which is a good thing. And there is a mismatch in cadence, which is challenging for me as I like to move fast. The counterclaim is that this is volunteer work, which is also true. There could be value in thinking about which aspects of the project have activity levels as a bottleneck. For example, there are two separate MQTT libraries currently proposed. The community determined that a single review to evaluate two proposals together was not appropriate, yet no decision has been made as to an alternative method for review. A potentially useful library is now sidelined, with its author in limbo. This harms the reputation of the project, and there should be a discussion on how our process might be updated to better serve the reviews. Thanks

David Sankel

3:09 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 7:39 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

20 days later members of the Foundation say there will be more options because they know at least one additional option is in development. But according to the previous logic, this additional option should be a "meaningful deviation from the status quo" or it should not be considered. But we do not know anything about it and the Foundation or its members have not disclosed any information to the developers.

Someone reached out to me personally saying they were working on another option, but I heard again from that same person that they are no longer moving forward with that.

...

Some days ago we knew that "the Boost Foundation is currently voting on a motion to utilize the library review process to decide the governance question which includes process suggestions. We should wait until that outcome".

But we have no information about this outcome and the board signed the original two option proposal.

We were waiting for one more vote which just came in. That should be sent out today. It's at least surprising that the

...

Foundation made such a strong decision proposal and 20 days later members of the board think that "allowing them to put forward proposals is part of facilitating that agency trying". Is that a new position from the board or a personal opinion from board members?

I don't understand the confusion. The board wants the Boost project to decide and they're trying to help facilitate that decision being made. There's no change in position. It will be extremely useful to see and compare writeups coming from Vinnie and Boost foundation leadership. There are clearly two paths, but I want to see them both described well. In my opinion, the Boost Foundation in its current form is not a particularly interesting option for Boost. It needs reforms and I hope these will be reflected in any proposal the Boost foundation leadership produces. In particular, I'd like to see 1) a plan for improved communication, 2) more Boost project involvement in appointments, and 3) a process for the removal of members not meaningfully contributing. Additionally, Foundation board members considered that the decision

...

should have "participation from the greater C++ community" and "the review manager should take into consideration feedback from all sources." which contradict the earlier "let the developers make a decision" from the board.

This was my *personal* opinion. Please stop confusing my emails with board acts. We also had some clarifications ("Misunderstandings about the Boost

...

Foundation", https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257463.php) that the Foundation thinks it should be considered from developers during this process.

Again, this was an email that I sent out personally, not the board. -- David

Niall Douglas

13 Aug 13 Aug

4:03 p.m.

On 13/08/2024 09:42, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

...

Re. who constitutes the Boost community, it should obviously include library authors and maintainers, as well as people who regularly contribute to library and infrastructure maintenance. People affiliated with either party whose proposal is being reviewed should clearly state their affiliation in their reviews.

The people who have served, without payment, on the non-development side of things have also contributed. More than a decade ago now I remember arguing with Jon Kalb that the perceived lack of connection between the Boost devs and the Boost non-devs was going to be a problem long run. There was a lack of advertising, lack of communication and lack of understanding. In both directions I would say. At the time, I tried my best to persuade Jon to have the Boost Steering Committee (as it was known then) to employ staff to maintain the infrastructure, but not to do development (apart from students). That would create a perspective of value being added by the then Steering Committee, rather than being some remote thing nobody really knew much about except when it either failed to act, did act, or took unpopular decisions. Things have become a lot worse since, and we have arrived at where we are at now where an alternative source of financial funding has been supplied. However I wish to make it clear that those who have served and do serve on the Boost Steering Committee/Boost Foundation **have** contributed using their time, their inconvenience and often their resulting unpopularity. And they didn't get paid for it, either. I think too little appreciation has been shown for the efforts of those volunteers over many years. Niall

John Maddock

10:14 a.m.

...

The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. Social media and C++ podcasts should be utilized. 7.

I'm also not convinced this helps, Boost will carry on whatever, even if we end up a somewhat disconnected group of projects on Github. Since "governance" primarily effects library authors, their viewpoints should probably carry the greatest weight. If users want to chip in too that's fine, but their POV needs to be taken in context IMO.

...

The review period should be longer than normal. Perhaps a three week period. The review manager should take into consideration feedback from all sources.

...

We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it.

Since Kristen has already asked for a vote, I believe this particular cat is already out of the bag. Best, John.

Ion Gaztañaga

10:37 a.m.

El 13/08/2024 a las 12:14, John Maddock via Boost escribió:

...

...
We also need this decision to have unambiguous authority. If the Boost Foundation, which has a meeting on Thursday, endorses using the review process to resolve the organization question, then I think we’ll have it.

Since Kristen has already asked for a vote, I believe this particular cat is already out of the bag.

Best, John.

I'm a bit confused about what is Boost Foundation's position right now. Latest minutes are from 2024-06-12 Monthly Meeting, so we don't have context about how Kristen's post (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/07/257301.php) was elaborated. But it's an official position since it was signed by "The Boost Board of Directors". I don't know whether David's proposal is an unofficial update on Boost Foundation's position and how this relates to Kristen's post. It would helpful that the information about Boost Foundation's Board's minutes about this process could be up to date as soon as reasonably possible. Kristen proposed a binary choice that, with a third option mentioned in the ML, maybe made Alliance's proposal (https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257347.php) closer to that third option. I think that shows that we listen to each other and try to address some expressed concerns. I certainly encourage proponents of the fourth choice that David mentions in his post to explain the general idea of the proposal in the ML, so that we can enrich and improve the debate. Best, Ion

David Sankel

1:57 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 4:07 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

I don't know whether David's proposal is an unofficial update on Boost Foundation's position and how this relates to Kristen's post.

My email reflected my own opinion. You can generally assume that to be the case unless my emails state otherwise.

Ion Gaztañaga

5:05 p.m.

El 13/08/2024 a las 15:57, David Sankel via Boost escribió:

...

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 4:07 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...
I don't know whether David's proposal is an unofficial update on Boost Foundation's position and how this relates to Kristen's post.

My email reflected my own opinion. You can generally assume that to be the case unless my emails state otherwise.

Thanks for the clarification David. Re-reading your post I think I should have deduced that. Best, Ion

Vinnie Falco

1:56 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 3:14 AM John Maddock via Boost wrote:

...

Since "governance" primarily effects library authors, their viewpoints should probably carry the greatest weight.

There are two governing entities associated with Boost: * The Foundation which controls the boost.org domain and wowbagger server (hosting the website and mailing lists). * The Developers, defined as the set of users in the Boost GitHub Organization with the Owner role, plus their designated proxies. With Alliance as the governing entity of boost.org and its cloud services, authors will notice little to no impact on their libraries, as it is always the Developers who have unambiguous authority. Boost would see significant effects from Alliance efforts to increase participation in the project, and these efforts would be external to the repositories in the Boost GitHub Organization and thus not impact authors. However authors would be affected by seeing a new website when visiting boost.org (check out the preview at https://boost.io) so in this sense the governance affects them. Yet this too is under the dominion of the Developers, as the new website has been donated to the Boost GitHub Organization, where meaningful changes go through the existing pull-request-based approval workflow. Thanks

Age (days ago)

110

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

41 comments

18 participants

participants (18)

Alan de Freitas
Andrey Semashev
Andrzej Krzemienski
Christopher Kormanyos
David Sankel
Glen Fernandes
Ion Gaztañaga
Joaquin M López Muñoz
John Maddock
Klemens Morgenstern
Kristen Shaker
Louis Tatta
Mateusz Loskot
Niall Douglas
pdimov＠gmail.com
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
Richard
Vinnie Falco