From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-01 17:59:36
On 01/08/2024 13:12, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> On 7/31/24 23:11, Kristen Shaker via Boost wrote:
>> Here are what we believe to be the available options.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> The C++ Alliance assumes control of the Boost assets, including the
>> boost.org domain name. The Boost Foundation becomes uninvolved in any
>> decisions related to the Boost Libraries.
>> 2.
>>
>> The Boost Foundation continues to be the stewards of the boost.org
>> domain name and related assets. New assets that are meant to be associated
>> with the Boost Libraries are transferred to the Boost Foundation. In any
>> matters related to the Boost Libraries, the Board will abide by any
>> decisions made by the developers but will no longer vote themselves on
>> issues as they relate to the Boost Libraries unless there truly is no clear
>> consensus or path forward.
> I'm probably not going to be helpful, but I don't really like either of
> the options, with the first one being slightly less preferable.
Exactly, it's sort of like asking a panel of folks who don't know each
other (the developers) to conduct a job interview with two applicants
they also don't know. Expect an entirely random answer!
People I do know and respect, tell me the website would be safe in the
Alliance's hands. Also in the Foundation's hands *provided* they can
find a way to work with Vinnie - my understanding is that for several
releases now there would have been no releases at all without the
Alliance putting resources in.
So I guess I'm weakly in the (2) camp. But I would also like to explore
the "neutral 3rd party" option to see what that has to offer.
Best, John.