Regarding option (1), if I understand correctly, the C++ Alliance didn't ask to control existing assets.
They did try to buy the boost.org domain.
First, and most importantly, that's not what's being voted on. The Boost Foundation cannot transfer control of the domain to the C++ Alliance because they don't own it either. There's no point in voting on whether they can transfer ownership of something that is not theirs. Now, let's say we *were *voting about and discussing the C++ Alliance willingness to own whatever "Boost-related assets" regardless of who owns them. Even in this case, only the website comes to mind. I never saw them ask to own existing logos or anything else. And even then, the C++ Alliance has never been interested in owning the domain solely for its own sake until this problem came up. As I described, the only (artificial) conflict here is the website: the Boost Foundation is blocking it even though the community has agreed to change it via a review process. The C++ Alliance was never interested in implementing a website that the community didn't accept or buying the domain for anything unrelated to Boost. What happened was the Foundation was blocking something the community agreed with. Buying the domain (again, not owned by the Foundation) was a strategy to solve the problem. Not a goal in itself. If the foundation weren't blocking the website or the community were against it, I'm sure none of this would come up. The Alliance would be just as happy with the domain still owned by Sonda Dawes, and no one would even know about it. Owning it became just a strategy for implementing what the community wanted, and the Foundation was blocking. But I diverge. Again, that's not what's being voted on. The domain is not one of the assets they could transfer to the C++ Alliance.