Subject: Re: [boost] RFC.. Steering Committee Bylaws Proposal
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-18 18:04:44
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost <
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > But you need to take a very different approach to the one you are
> > taking. I know this will sound rich coming from me, but you are being
> > too confrontational. Proposing a set of bye laws from outside the SC is
> > confrontational.
> The SC asked Rene to do this, didn't they? i.e. His help was solicited at
Correct. It went like this:
* I arrived at the conference, happy to be distracted from seriously bad
stuff that was happening to me personally. And really intent on not
thinking about Boost much.
* I was cornered (my entrance badge was held hostage) into talking to
certain SC people to reconcile. I had a bunch of drinks that made that
* I was happily enjoying the conference. And having some interesting
discussions about build systems and the C++ ecosystem, thanks to Izzy for
fueling some of that :-)
* I was asked to have a discussion as to moving forward with cmake. I spoke
maybe 6 words in that conversation.
* I was asked to talk with other SC members about the concerns that the
cmake decision raised in how that decision was made.
* I pointed out my, and others, concerns about the lack of transparency and
lack of involvement. And I mentioned that in other organizations such rules
are written down in documents like by-laws.
* They asked me to write up some by-laws for them to consider.
* I spent two weeks of some spare time doing that. And then getting some
private proofreading on that result.
* I then posted them here. Because I believe that we should discuss such
things in public before proposing them to the SC for consideration.
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk