El 20/09/2024 a las 8:37, Julien Blanc via Boost escribió:
My understanding is that it is an agreement between a non-profit and three physical persons. So, my guess is that part of the outcome of this review is acknowledging that these three persons (or five, as some have suggested to add a few names) can act on behalf of the boost community. Is that correct?
Those three can only take decisions on behalf of the community regarding the assets that the fiscal sponsor manages (domain, infrastructure...). Since the fiscal sponsor can't sign the agreement with every single boost community member, we need to somehow pick some representative members to sign. As Rene explained in one of his posts, when deciding on behalf of the community, the procedure would be to have a review process so that that new SC can know what should transmit to the fiscal sponsor. How the Boost project is organized, how should technically evolve, etc. is outside this review and only the boost community can decide on this. E.g.: this new "steering committee" has nothing to say in what build system, C++ standard level version, documentation tools, etc. should the project use, which library should be accepted, etc. In their theoretical missions, the original steering committee (https://web.archive.org/web/20141224160315/https://sites.google.com/a/boost....) and Foundation (https://sites.google.com/boost.org/boost-foundation/home) claimed to have some sort of "general Boost project steering" powers: SC: "Committee is to be able to commit the organization to specific action either where consensus cannot be reached, but a decision must be made" Foundation: "making directional decisions in the event of Boost community deadlock". But in practice that never worked and the new SC should never claim that has attributions outside the shared assets the are covered by the agreement. Best, Ion