Re: [boost] RFC.. Steering Committee Bylaws Proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC.. Steering Committee Bylaws Proposal
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-18 16:00:55

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
> >> Steering
> >>> Committee operates. At CppCon I met with some of the Steering Committee
> >> and
> >>> 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.
> >> But
> >>> before formally presenting them to the Steering Committee I'd like get
> >>> feedback on them <http://bit.ly/2hI22DN>[1].
> >>>
> >>> The Bylaws hopefully address some key issues that I feel are at the
> core
> >> of
> >>> 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'm sure I don't have the time to drive such an effort to design en elicit
such organizational consensus.

> I like the idea of looking at other organizations, and asking the SFC
> for advice on the matter.

How should we ask the SFC for advice? Whom should ask? I'm asking because
the recent mechanism for this is to ask the SC to ask the SFC.

> (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 !)
>

Perhaps.. But at some point starting from scratch will happen anyway if
nothing gets done.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net