Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 07:37:36
On 19 May 2016 at 4:32, Rob Stewart wrote:
> >bad for insiders), the steering committee somehow came to the conclusion
> >that their job wasn't to steer.
> The SC's job, from the beginning, was to represent the community when
> necessary, which applies particularly to finances, to respond to
> requests for action or policy, and to make decisions for the community
> when needed for reasonable progress and consensus is elusive. It was
> definitely not formed as a governmental body directing the community.
It's funny to see the same arguments rehearsed here again. Slightly
different people, otherwise same arguments.
I'm going to disagree with your assertion though Rob. Looking through
the original slides proposing the SC, it seems like a larger
leadership role was anticipated. Dave expressed to me at the time of
its creation that it was to become the new leadership, because he was
getting tired of doing the never ending charge and it was becoming
legally tricky for individuals to sign things for an org without
having some sort of board. That original vision for the SC has since
morphed into an administrative role for the SC *through the active
choice of the SC* to disavow proactive leadership, but that's not
your assertion here. The choice to not be proactive happened *after*
the SC's creation, it was not explicitly planned to be totally hands
off from the beginning.
You may remember I proposed some time ago for the Steering Committee
to be renamed to the "Board of Trustees" as that accurately describes
your chosen function. That would open the door for the creation of an
actual Steering Committee which does Steering.
Unfortunately you all voted that proposal down, so it didn't happen.
> > Either the steering committee will step up
> >to protect the original vision of Boost, or the vision of Boost will
> >change to serve the insiders.
> I don't know what you think the SC should be doing, but hasn't done, to
> "Make Boost Great Again," to borrow a current, but vague, campaign
I'd really like David to send a formal proposal to boost-steering
with a specific plan please. That forces you to explicitly refuse to
act again, and maybe if we keep seeing the same formal proposal being
made every year it'll finally get the message through to you that you
need to stop sitting on your hands. David - you may find searching
the previous posts to boost-steering about leadership of use when
crafting your formal proposal.
Also David, if you decide to do this, feel free to run any such
proposal past me beforehand. I can probably loop in a few others with
an interest in this topic. I've given up on leading out any charges
on this stuff after never ending recalcitrance and refusal to
consider change, but I'm happy to assist you or anyone else in
pushing for real change. I'd still much rather change from within
than an inevitable eventual hostile fork.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk