From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-11 15:13:17
On 11/07/2024 10:28, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> I recently brought up (by e-mail) the subject of the relationship
> between the Boost Foundation and the Beman Project before the
> BF board.
>
> I expressed the opinion that, since the Boost Foundation's primary
> purpose is to support Boost, the Beman Project should eventually
> have its own backing entity (foundation/nonprofit), instead of the
> existing Boost Foundation supporting both.
>
> David Sankel responded, quoted Boost Foundation's mission
> statement:
>
> "The Boost Foundation’s broad C++ mission is: (a) development of high quality, expert reviewed, legally unencumbered, open-source libraries, (b) inspiring standard enhancements, and (c) advancing and disseminating software development best practices. It does this by fostering community engagement, nurturing leaders, providing necessary financial/legal support, and making directional decisions in the event of Boost community deadlock."
>
> and helpfully pointed out that it very much doesn't say that
> supporting Boost is the primary purpose of the Foundation.
>
> And indeed, if one pays attention to the above, one would
> notice that Boost only appears once, at the end, somewhat
> incidentally, and as an afterthought.
>
> Unsurprisingly, I disagree. I think that the primary purpose
> of an entity named "the Boost Foundation" should be to
> support Boost, and if it currently isn't, something not quite
> right.
Historically what used to be the entity which was formerly the entity
which preceded the Boost Foundation got most of its money from C++ Now,
which was formerly BoostCon. Back when it was BoostCon, it could be
strongly argued that the monies involved were generated by Boost. Since
the name change, that has been harder to argue, and since covid emptied
coffers everywhere, any monies generated since are even less Boost involved.
We have always struggled with spending that money. The purse strings
have been open for spending on infrastructure (e.g. Boost test
regression servers), students (e.g. Louis Dionne) but not historically
on people. It therefore mounted and mounted, unspent. I mainly agreed
with not spending on devs, but I did not agree with refusing to spend on
maintenance and infrastructure, and probably on docs. We certainly could
have done with paid workers on those, and it wasn't like we couldn't
afford it.
This left open a resourcing gap which the C++ Alliance has filled, and
as has been very evident from all the posts answering "A question for
folks here". I think myself, Robert Ramey and John Maddock are just
about the only library devs left still active who **haven't** had income
from the C++ Alliance in the past. Though perhaps it is I can't think of
others at the moment.
In any case, the C++ Alliance has spent its way into a viable contender
for taking over Boost, and I think the former steering group could have
handled its rise better, especially around optics and communication,
neither of which were ever its strong points. It certainly could have
looked harder at its past inertia, and chosen to take more risks.
All this didn't need to come out as it has, but no point looking
backwards. We should look forwards.
> At the moment I'm not proposing anything yet; this is purely
> informative. But no matter how I look at it, I see a pretty
> fundamental difference of opinion, which we'll need to
> deal with at some point.
I think you're seeing the Beman Project as a Boost 2.0, or Boost
replacement.
If one saw it instead as preparing the ground for reforming the shit
show which is WG21 library standardisation, then it would be complementary.
Boost's very own founders had first had experience of the shit show
which is WG21 library standardisation. It could be argued that Dave left
C++ over it, and Beman holds the record for the longest and hardest
library standardisation process ever at WG21. I think Boost has - for
extremely good reasons given the evidence - stopped trying at WG21.
Therefore a new org focused on library at WG21 seems to me appropriate
at this time.
If one chooses to see things as I am, then I see no issue with the Boost
Foundation continuing its role for Boost and the Beman Project. Separate
things.
I also see no issue with leaving everything absolutely as it currently
is going forth, either.
Niall