Subject: Re: [boost] RFC.. Steering Committee Bylaws Proposal
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 11:44:36
On 17.10.2017 00:09, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 16.10.2017 07:35, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
>>> It has become clear to me, and some others, that the recent decisions of
>>> the Steering Committee have exposed various problems with how the
>>> Committee operates. At CppCon I met with some of the Steering Committee
>>> expressed the concerns with them. I also explained, from my experience in
>>> other organizations, how such issues are managed. The result of that is
>>> that I will be proposing the Steering Committee adopt operating Bylaws.
>>> before formally presenting them to the Steering Committee I'd like get
>>> feedback on them <http://bit.ly/2hI22DN>.
>>> The Bylaws hopefully address some key issues that I feel are at the core
>>> the current problems:
>>> * Decisions can be made without input from interested parties.
>>> * Opaque selection of members.
>>> * No recourse by library authors to correct problems.
>> One particularly contentious issue I see is related to the committee's
>> mandate: what decisions are in scope for the committee, and how are
>> conflicts resolved, should they arise ?
> Right.. But right now there is nothing to resolve conflicts. Or rather, we
> have one, we can ignore what the Committee says. After all there's nothing
> now, or in these bylaws, that says we have to "do as we're told".
> I believe this question is even bigger than just about the Steering
>> Committee and its mandate; it is about the very nature of the Boost
>> organization, in relation to its member projects, and in particular, how
>> projects as well as the entire organization are governed, how decisions
>> are being made, etc.
> Indeed. And ultimately the question is do we want to build a Committee that
> manages such things, or not. If it's the former we need some mechanism for
> doing the building. If it's the later... We will have to come up with some
> other mechanism and abandon the Committee.
I agree. My point is that before we can discuss organizational structure
and bylaws we need to find consensus as to what that structure should
help us achieve, and what mandate such a committee should have.
I like the idea of looking at other organizations, and asking the SFC
for advice on the matter.
(For avoidance of doubt: I'm not suggesting to start over from scratch:
Boost has a long history, and the Steering Committee has provided
excellent service over the years. Let's build on that !)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk