A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest. It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials? More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions? As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
On 5/6/21 9:25 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest.
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions?
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
+1
My answer to all the questions is "No"! On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:55 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest.
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions?
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
-- -- 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
-- Thank you, Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:25, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions?
Yes.
This is a problem.
I agree.
We should have input into how that organization governs.
I agree. Disclaimer: I'm not a library author, just maintainer and (trouble)shooter here and there.
In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
I'm very much appreciate the way it's done at OSGeo Foundation where projects are typically governed by a Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC should operate openly and with a consensus based approach where any critical decision goes via proposal (RFC), discussion and voting by PSC members. e.g. https://gdal.org/development/rfc/index.html I have very vague idea of how it works in Boost. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On 5/6/2021 12:25 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest.
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions?
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
Without in any way discrediting the governance organization it has always seemed to me that what happens with Boost in general and individual Boost libraries/tools has always been because of the Boost developers/maintainers/supporters and those who take part in the Boost mailing lists and/or propose issues/PRs on Github, rather than any decision(s) made by the governance organization. That is probably the reason why I know practically nothing, or even care much, about the governance organization. Again this is not an attempt to discredit anyone in the governance organization but the simple fact that whatever they do hardly seems to matter on a practical level. Forgive my ignorance, but I am just trying to be honest about what I know or care to know.
On 5/6/21 7:25 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest.
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions?
I did answer "no" to many of these questions, although I think Boost Foundation was announced at some point on this list. Or maybe mentioned in some discussion. I can't remember the details, it's just the name does ring a bell.
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
I agree the process could be more open. I have to say, as a library author and maintainer, I don't see how I'm being governed by those bodies. I don't see them intervening in technical discussions and decisions, so when it comes for development, reviews, library acceptance/rejects and even the development policies Boost seems pretty much governed by developers themselves. Which, I think, is a good thing. I'm not involved in financial or legal side of things, and don't participate in GSOC and other side projects, where Boost Foundation probably has a more prominent and important role. I'm not very interested in those areas.
Rene Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
Honesty, the fact that the ex Steering Committee and now Foundation Board of Directors has a Google Sites web page, and Google Groups mailing list, not something at boost.org, made me think originally that it was either a scam/fake or something left over from pre-history before the boost.org domain was registered. I do now understand that is is a real thing (there is a link to the Google Sites web page from boost.org, in the sidebar under "community", which still says "Steering Committee" not "Foundation"). I don't know what the rationale for not using boost.org is. Maybe there is a belief that people on this list and/or the -users and -announce lists don't want to be bothered about what the committee/board are doing? If that's the case, I would say that it is not well-founded; at the least, the -announce list should be used to announce things like elections, and the bylaws (i.e. election process) should be available to read somewhere. I note that the Google Sites web page says that "You can make a request of the Board at any time through the *public* email list available _here_", but the link leads to a *private* Google Groups page. The old Steering Committee Google Groups page was public. Regards, Phil.
On 06/05/2021 17:25, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference?
No
Did you know that switch happened?
Yes. I think I was the very first person to propose it, in fact.
Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers?
Yes
Do you know when that election happened?
Roughly
Do you know who got elected?
Yes
Do you know how they were selected?
Yes
Do you know what their responsibilities are?
Yes
Do you know what their bylaws are?
Yes
Do you know their financials?
Not in recent years, but I would be surprised if much has changed (Boost is still very wealthy and getting ever wealthier)
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
It's not that any of this is hidden, it's just not loudly advertised. Back when I noticed the changes I sent a quick email to Jon who answered all the above questions. I think he also fixed some errata I had found on the new website. If you ask, you will be told. Very few here are interested nor care. There is certainly nothing being hidden here. Boost development has been divorced from Boost financing and governance for a very long time now, but you may have noticed that in recent years there has been a proactive attempt to bring more currently active Boost library maintainers onto the governance board to try and close that gap. I agree things could flow better in the direction of this mailing list specifically, but in terms of governance regularly meeting with a good cross section of currently active Boost library maintainers, that's been annual or better since the beginning. Said maintainers just don't post here, or even read here, much any more, and in some ways this mailing list is off doing its own thing increasingly far away from Boost library maintenance. Niall
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials?
More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions? I answered yes to most, and no to some. To be completely honest, as co-authorand co-maintainer of two LIBs, and alsohaving numerous other projectsin other domains, I'm glad I didn't have todeal with the stuff I answered "no" to. This is, admittedly, a rather self-centeredattitude regarding Boost from my side,I do admit. Kind regards, Christopher
On Friday, May 7, 2021, 3:13:33 PM GMT+2, Niall Douglas via Boost
It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference?
No
Did you know that switch happened?
Yes. I think I was the very first person to propose it, in fact.
Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers?
Yes
Do you know when that election happened?
Roughly
Do you know who got elected?
Yes
Do you know how they were selected?
Yes
Do you know what their responsibilities are?
Yes
Do you know what their bylaws are?
Yes
Do you know their financials?
Not in recent years, but I would be surprised if much has changed (Boost is still very wealthy and getting ever wealthier)
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo.
It's not that any of this is hidden, it's just not loudly advertised. Back when I noticed the changes I sent a quick email to Jon who answered all the above questions. I think he also fixed some errata I had found on the new website. If you ask, you will be told. Very few here are interested nor care. There is certainly nothing being hidden here. Boost development has been divorced from Boost financing and governance for a very long time now, but you may have noticed that in recent years there has been a proactive attempt to bring more currently active Boost library maintainers onto the governance board to try and close that gap. I agree things could flow better in the direction of this mailing list specifically, but in terms of governance regularly meeting with a good cross section of currently active Boost library maintainers, that's been annual or better since the beginning. Said maintainers just don't post here, or even read here, much any more, and in some ways this mailing list is off doing its own thing increasingly far away from Boost library maintenance. Niall _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:25 AM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost
As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem.
There is a logical fallacy here. There is no "problem" with not knowing those answers, because authors are largely unaffected by the activities of the SC. This is probably the reason for the ignorance - why learn how and what the organization does if it doesn't change how the authors work?
As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work.
Another fallacy. The SC does not "govern our work" in any practical sense. It certainly hasn't influenced any of my library work. So why should I care about how decisions are made? Thanks
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 7:58 AM Vinnie Falco
Another fallacy. The SC does not "govern our work" in any practical sense. It certainly hasn't influenced any of my library work. So why should I care about how decisions are made?
In light of recent events, I must admit that this post I made three years ago did not age well at all. Thanks
participants (10)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Christopher Kormanyos -
Edward Diener -
Mateusz Loskot -
Niall Douglas -
Phil Endecott -
Pranam Lashkari -
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -
Robert Ramey -
Vinnie Falco