Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Andrey

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-11 22:48:09

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:15 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thank you, this is an important clarification. I wish it was more clear
> from the FSA document.
> ...
> ...initiate amendments that make the wording more clear and in line
> with the intention of making the SC more independent.

I agree and that's why I think it would be valuable for you to
participate in the process. You say you have a complete lack of
knowledge on the topic yet you have raised more relevant points than
anyone else. Up to you :)

> I'm saying that the conflict of interest is a real threat, and the FSA
> should account for it and ensure the SC is protected from it, one
> way or another.

I agree, and I'm not sure that the agreement can or should prevent it.
Just because someone is a board member of the C++ Alliance does not
mean a conflict exists. And just because someone is not a board member
of the C++ Alliance, does not mean that no conflicts exist. The return
value of the metaphorical function `bool has_conflict(Member)` can
only be calculated by humans, not legal contracts. One of the reasons
for having several members on the committee is to ensure that if a
member has a conflict they can be replaced by the others.

It could be worthwhile to provide examples of what a conflict of
interest might look like, and we can work through it and see whether
or not the proposed structure resolves it.

> I don't see why the Alliance should be taking action to maintain the
> size of the SC. And it doesn't sound right that it is the Alliance who
> will be picking members and not the SC and the Boost community.

This is what the Software Freedom Conservancy and Beman Dawes arranged
in the contract. Replace "Alliance" with "Software Freedom
Conservancy" above, and that was the status quo before Boost
Foundation. From a legal perspective there is no "Boost community,"
there is only the Steering Committee.

Why did the SFC arrange things this way? I don't have a perfect answer
for you but I assume it was for a good reason. I simply copied what
worked.

> What the Alliance could do if the size of the SC is below the limit, is
> initiate elections through the SC, so that the SC and the community do
> the picking at the Alliance's request. Though I don't think that should
> be necessary, since the SC should act before that according to its "rules".

It is wonderful that you are clearly invested and desiring a robust
solution that will work for everyone! I think you should participate
in the legal review ahead of the signing of the FSA (I think it can be
arranged to happen via email), and you should bring up these ideas.
You can then work with the Current Committee lawyer to ensure that
your concerns are addressed.

Thanks