[boost] Boost Governance?
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost
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
Pranam Lashkari via Boost
Mateusz Loskot via Boost
<bo...@lists.boost.org> 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?
>
> 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
Glen Fernandes 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.
governed the Boost C++ Libraries, nor did the Boost Steering
committee, nor does the Boost Foundation. Only the Boost community
does that.
13:15 <grafikrobot> Hopefully you'll clarify that on the dev list.
i.e. The "Boost Steering Committee"[1] became "Boost Foundation"[2].
[1] https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/home
[2] https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/boost-foundation
It still deals with the C++Now conference, providing the mailing
lists, hosting, etc. But any decision making and governance of the
Boost libraries is still the domain of the Boost community (i.e. you,
me, and the other Boost library authors and maintainers).
Glen
Andrey Semashev via Boost
> 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.
Edward Diener via Boost
> 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.
Robert Ramey via Boost
> 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
Phil Endecott 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?
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.
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost
bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> Rene 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.
>
> 13:14 <glenfe> @grafikrobot The Software Freedom Conservancy never
> governed the Boost C++ Libraries, nor did the Boost Steering
> committee, nor does the Boost Foundation. Only the Boost community
> does that.
> 13:15 <grafikrobot> Hopefully you'll clarify that on the dev list.
>
>
> i.e. The "Boost Steering Committee"[1] became "Boost Foundation"[2].
>
> [1] https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/home
> [2] https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/boost-foundation
>
> It still deals with the C++Now conference, providing the mailing
> lists, hosting, etc. But any decision making and governance of the
> Boost libraries is still the domain of the Boost community (i.e. you,
> me, and the other Boost library authors and maintainers).
>
How does that reconcile with the statement of purpose on the web site:
* The role of the Board is to be able to commit the organization to
specific action either where funds are required or where consensus cannot
be reached, but a decision must be made. *
That, at minimum, implies some form of control and hence governance.
--
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
_______________________________________________
Glen Fernandes via Boost
<grafi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:26 PM Glen Fernandes via Boost <bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>>
>> Rene 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.
>>
>> 13:14 <glenfe> @grafikrobot The Software Freedom Conservancy never
>> governed the Boost C++ Libraries, nor did the Boost Steering
>> committee, nor does the Boost Foundation. Only the Boost community
>> does that.
>> 13:15 <grafikrobot> Hopefully you'll clarify that on the dev list.
>>
>>
>> i.e. The "Boost Steering Committee"[1] became "Boost Foundation"[2].
>>
>> [1] https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/home
>> [2] https://sites.google.com/a/boost.org/steering/boost-foundation
>>
>> It still deals with the C++Now conference, providing the mailing
>> lists, hosting, etc. But any decision making and governance of the
>> Boost libraries is still the domain of the Boost community (i.e. you,
>> me, and the other Boost library authors and maintainers).
>
>
> How does that reconcile with the statement of purpose on the web site:
>
>
It's probably like the "Boost is moving to CMake" statement, but I
can't remember how much control and governance that carried...
Glen
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
Christopher Kormanyos via Boost
> Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance
> 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
Mateusz Loskot via Boost
<bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> The Software Freedom Conservancy never governed the Boost
> C++ Libraries, nor did the Boost Steering committee,
> nor does the Boost Foundation.
> Only the Boost community does that.
>
> (i.e. you, me, and the other Boost library authors
> and maintainers).
around the advent of the CMake for Boost and I've never
since clarified it (to myself) how it's supposed to work.
If I want to contribute to a FOSS project, then I head
to its repository and learn the way from the README.md,
CONTRIBUTING.md and documentation (in that order usually).
If I want to submit a Boost-wide proposal, e.g.. pay for CI,
I have no idea what is the path I am supposed to walk.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, there was a mechanism that:
1. captures the current state of the project and the community
affairs without excessive intrusion or any stir-up,
hopefully.
2. is simple to implement and document
3. is effective for collective decision making
Let's suppose, hypothetically, the capturing part means
labelling to distinguish already existing roles:
- Boost Community Participant - an every named or anonymous
individual who participates in activities of
the Boost project.
- Boost Community Member - every fully named non-anonymous
individual who participates in activities of
the Boost project.
- Boost Charter Member - every fully named individual who is
either an original author or currently active maintainer of
a Boost library. Such person is automatically considered
a core contributor to the Boost project and is entitled
to vote for motions put forward to the Boost project.
Then, the implementation could be described quite clearly:
- We do not have a hierarchical structure.
- Every strategic decisions regarding the Boost project,
decisions that cannot be decided by consensus, decisions
that might be controversial are brought to a vote.
- Only named Members or Charter Members can put motions
forward to the Boost organization for voting.
- Only Charter Members can vote for proposals acting
as individuals according to their individual point-of-view,
wearing their personal hat for the best interest of the Boost.
- The Voting Wizard is an admin role to coordinate the voting,
namely, 1) validates the proposal; 2) puts it for two weeks
review period; 3) announces start/end of voting; 4) counts
total of votes and validates votes against the latest list
of names in `authors` and `maintainers` fields
of `meta/libraries.json`.
Statistically, 100% participation rate means
total of votes == total of names in meta/libraries.json.
Then, I think, the collective decision making in Boost might
become clear for everyone, regardless of their seniority and
experience within the community, almost a no-brainer ;)
Dominique Devienne via Boost
bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> - Only Charter Members can vote for proposals acting
> as individuals according to their individual point-of-view,
> wearing their personal hat for the best interest of the Boost.
>
but are still tallied. To show the wider community's opinion(s).
At least that's how it works in the Apache (Java) OSS community. --DD
Hans Dembinski via Boost
> On 18. May 2021, at 09:22, Dominique Devienne via Boost <bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:01 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
> bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>
>> - Only Charter Members can vote for proposals acting
>> as individuals according to their individual point-of-view,
>> wearing their personal hat for the best interest of the Boost.
>>
>
> Anyone should be able to vote. Those "other" votes are just non-binding,
> but are still tallied. To show the wider community's opinion(s).
>
> At least that's how it works in the Apache (Java) OSS community. --DD
Mateusz Loskot via Boost
<bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:01 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
> bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>
> > - Only Charter Members can vote for proposals acting
> > as individuals according to their individual point-of-view,
> > wearing their personal hat for the best interest of the Boost.
> >
>
> Anyone should be able to vote. Those "other" votes are just non-binding,
> but are still tallied. To show the wider community's opinion(s).
gather opinions and general sentiment.
The other votes usually generate noise.
> At least that's how it works in the Apache (Java) OSS community. --DD
with projects under the umbrella of the OSGeo Foundation,
where only Charter Members can vote.
(There is a difference in who is a CM though).
Mateusz Loskot via Boost
> > On 18. May 2021, at 09:22, Dominique Devienne via Boost <bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:01 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
> > bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> >
> >> - Only Charter Members can vote for proposals acting
> >> as individuals according to their individual point-of-view,
> >> wearing their personal hat for the best interest of the Boost.
> >>
> >
> > Anyone should be able to vote. Those "other" votes are just non-binding,
> > but are still tallied. To show the wider community's opinion(s).
> >
> > At least that's how it works in the Apache (Java) OSS community. --DD
>
> It is also how we review new library contributions.
a significantly different process from making project-wide strategic
decisions. An author can show up on the list out of blue and
propose a library, collect support and submit for review. It is possible
because libraries are reviewed purely based on technical merit.
That is different, I think.
Disclaimer:
I'm not defending my proposal, which I aimed to keep brief.
I'm only offering some further clarification.
Hans Dembinski via Boost
> On 18. May 2021, at 09:49, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 09:41, Hans Dembinski via Boost
> <bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>>> On 18. May 2021, at 09:22, Dominique Devienne via Boost <bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:01 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
>>> bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> - Only Charter Members can vote for proposals acting
>>>> as individuals according to their individual point-of-view,
>>>> wearing their personal hat for the best interest of the Boost.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone should be able to vote. Those "other" votes are just non-binding,
>>> but are still tallied. To show the wider community's opinion(s).
>>>
>>> At least that's how it works in the Apache (Java) OSS community. --DD
>>
>> It is also how we review new library contributions.
>
> In the idea sketched up earlier, I deliberately consider library review
> a significantly different process from making project-wide strategic
> decisions. An author can show up on the list out of blue and
> propose a library, collect support and submit for review. It is possible
> because libraries are reviewed purely based on technical merit.
>
> That is different, I think.
>
> Disclaimer:
> I'm not defending my proposal, which I aimed to keep brief.
> I'm only offering some further clarification.
Vinnie Falco via Boost
<bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> ...
> Dear Mateusz,
> ...
Why are we talking about governance? What exactly is the "problem" we
are trying to "solve?"
Thanks
Vinnie Falco via Boost
> ...
> Why are we talking about governance? What exactly is the "problem" we
> are trying to "solve?"
Vinnie Falco via Boost
<bo...@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> 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