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

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC.. Steering Committee Bylaws Proposal
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-18 22:23:51

> I have to say.. Finding this stuff out now is rapidly decreasing my
> confidence in the SC and the operation of Boost. It's a sad situation. And
> I'm worried this is just going to implode. I'd really like to find out what
> the rules truly are and what is going on. This is horribly saddening :-(

It took me a while to figure out too. But there is a defined process for
org change. Routes forward:

1. You get a demonstrated general consensus here that your proposed
changes are widely agreed with by the community.

Example: The recent changes to how libraries enter the review queue.

2. You persuade the SC that consensus by the community on a change
cannot be reached due to disagreement or apathy, but a decision must be
made or else it will threaten Boost's future.

Examples: the cmake decision, the need to upgrade Boost's server
infrastructure, the list dmarc setting, funding the continuing GSoC
students when Google dropped us in 2016 for no good reason, lots of
others actually I can't remember off hand ...

Now that is a terrible governance design. Really awful. Anyone with any
experience in governance design would have warned against choosing it
for the SC at foundation. But it's done now, and that's the established
process for changing the org. They have to follow it.

You have drawn up a proposed new set of by laws, as the SC chair asked
you to do. You now must either get the community to widely agree on
them, in which case the SC will adopt them as it is required to do,
unless those by laws cannot be adopted for legal reasons.

Or you need to demonstrate to the SC that community consensus cannot be
reached on your proposed changes, and that failure to adopt the change
threatens the future of Boost. Note the ordering: (i) demonstrate
failure to reach consensus (ii) demonstrate failure to change is a
threat to the org. In that order. The hardest part with this route is
(ii), without lots of people quitting Boost in anger, hard to prove (ii).

I say all of the above from my past four years of dealing with the SC.
If the above is inaccurate, I am sure SC members will volunteer
themselves to correct me. But I would say you have a fair chance under
Route 2. I think you have no chance under Route 1. Too few here think
governance is important, unfortunately, until it bites them personally
in the ass. Until then it's always somebody else's problem.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/