Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 11:24:11

On May 19, 2016 7:37:36 AM EDT, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On 19 May 2016 at 4:32, Rob Stewart wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>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.

I don't know what Dave told you, or what he intended. I do know that I was present at the meeting that established the committee. Your recollection and interpretation differ from mine. As I noted elsewhere, Beman has been involved all along and he hasn't noted, to my knowledge, any deviation from the original direction either.

>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.

I recall the name change getting serious consideration, but I don't recall the details of any decision.

>> > 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
>> slogan. 
>
>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.

The committee you describe is not the one I joined, as I understand things. There is, obviously, a vocal contingent asking for more., and that may well be an important, even necessary, change. Specific proposals for changes to the  SC, or for the creation of a new board, are reasonable but they would need wide support in the community, not just from a vocal few.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)