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 16:30:48

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> >>> Since boost is also a member of the SFC, did it do the same?
> >>
> >> I have no idea. As joining the SFC was another one of those decisions
> made
> >> mostly in obscurity.
> >
> >
> > Indeed, I've never heard of that, nor know what the SFC is in fact.
> > Could someone please elaborate? I guess this is the kind of things
> > one hears about at BoostCon only? Thanks, --DD
>
> The SFC can be found at https://sfconservancy.org/
>
> Boost is by far the wealthiest member of the SFC, and as part of the SFC
> it falls under US non-profit law.
>
> Therefore you cannot just set new by laws or change the SC's
> configuration without undergoing the formal legal process as established
> under US non-profits regulations.
>

Right.. But technically Boost nor the SC are legal organizations under any
laws. It's the SFC that's the legal organization.

> The bylaws you suggested earlier I believe are illegal under US charity
> law.

Easily resolved by changing the name to "Rules and Policies". And no they
aren't meant to be legal from as self organized corporation. After all it's
a committee not a board.

As I suggested, you need to add separation of powers and you'd
> stand a much better chance of the SFC's lawyers okaying it.
>

The separation is already there. There's the SFC and the SC. For every
monetary decision that the SC makes the SFC still needs to approve it.

As considerable sums of money are involved, fiduciary duty is very
> important here, else the US IRS would correctly assess tax
> non-compliance may be at work.
>

Which is why the SFC does due diligence to make sure the SC doesn't run
afoul of those laws and of its own by-laws and policies.

You might consider listening to the advice being given to you on this.
>

What makes you think I didn't consider the advice? After all I can consider
the advice and not follow it.

> Some of us went down that rabbit hole many years ago. We may have even
> nearly achieved getting some formal by laws written down, we were just
> short on the SC votes.
>

That's news to me. And I suspect that's news to almost everyone else here.
This is key problem to the current arrangement. Do you see how that is
contrary to the original goals of the SC. When did that happen? Before or
after joining the SFC? Where did it happen? How many votes did you need?
How many votes did you get? What was concretely proposed? What did the
proponents say? What did the detractors say?

And ultimately.. Why do we need to even ask questions as to what the SC
does?

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