On May 19, 2016 7:37:36 AM EDT, Niall Douglas
On 19 May 2016 at 4:32, Rob Stewart wrote:
The SC's job, from the beginning, was to represent the community when necessary, which applies particularly to finances, to respond to requests for action or policy, and to make decisions for the community when needed for reasonable progress and consensus is elusive. It was definitely not formed as a governmental body directing the community.
I'm going to disagree with your assertion though Rob. Looking through the original slides proposing the SC, it seems like a larger leadership role was anticipated. Dave expressed to me at the time of its creation that it was to become the new leadership, because he was getting tired of doing the never ending charge and it was becoming legally tricky for individuals to sign things for an org without having some sort of board. That original vision for the SC has since morphed into an administrative role for the SC *through the active choice of the SC* to disavow proactive leadership, but that's not your assertion here. The choice to not be proactive happened *after* the SC's creation, it was not explicitly planned to be totally hands off from the beginning.
I don't know what Dave told you, or what he intended. I do know that I was present at the meeting that established the committee. Your recollection and interpretation differ from mine. As I noted elsewhere, Beman has been involved all along and he hasn't noted, to my knowledge, any deviation from the original direction either.
You may remember I proposed some time ago for the Steering Committee to be renamed to the "Board of Trustees" as that accurately describes your chosen function. That would open the door for the creation of an actual Steering Committee which does Steering.
Unfortunately you all voted that proposal down, so it didn't happen.
I recall the name change getting serious consideration, but I don't recall the details of any decision.
Either the steering committee will step up to protect the original vision of Boost, or the vision of Boost will change to serve the insiders.
I don't know what you think the SC should be doing, but hasn't done, to "Make Boost Great Again," to borrow a current, but vague, campaign slogan.
I'd really like David to send a formal proposal to boost-steering with a specific plan please. That forces you to explicitly refuse to act again, and maybe if we keep seeing the same formal proposal being made every year it'll finally get the message through to you that you need to stop sitting on your hands.
The committee you describe is not the one I joined, as I understand things. There is, obviously, a vocal contingent asking for more., and that may well be an important, even necessary, change. Specific proposals for changes to the SC, or for the creation of a new board, are reasonable but they would need wide support in the community, not just from a vocal few. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)