The Boost Foundation approved the following motion relating to using the library review process for the governance/fiscal entity decision with 8 in favor and 0 against. MOTION: Support handling the governance question with the following process recommendations: - There should be a period (maybe a month) with a request for proposals. - These proposals should answer questions such as “What problems is this organizational change attempting to solve? How is this in line with Boost’s mission and values? What will the impact be for current volunteers? How does this proposal meet the changing needs of the Boost and wider C++ communities? What risks are there with this approach and how can they be mitigated? How will the greater C++ community react to this development?” - Proposal writers are encouraged to publish their proposals early and use feedback to refine them until the official review period is underway. - The proposals should be specific about how expenses will be financed, how decisions are made, and how decision makers will be put in place. - For fiscal entities, structure and bylaws should be stated. - All proposals should be reviewed during the same period. - The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. - The review period should be 20 days. - We want this to be a civil discussion and encourage everyone to make this a reality. Presume that others in the discussion are acting in good faith. -- David
Where does this desire to involve "the greater C++ community" come from? It seems like a great way to muddy the waters with a cacophony of uninformed voices.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:17 AM Thomas Fowlery via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Where does this desire to involve "the greater C++ community" come from? It seems like a great way to muddy the waters with a cacophony of uninformed voices.
I can't speak to motivations, and any efforts to increase participation in formal reviews sounds like a good thing to me. Perhaps some of the comments will come from uninformed individuals, yet even that has value as they inform the Boost community of what we might improve in terms of messaging. Thanks
Before we go to Mateusz to approve this on our schedule, we would need the following: - A start date It doesn't look like there are any objections to the length of 20 days - Links to proposals Ideally hosted on a GitHub repository, or somewhere we can track any changes made as a consequence of the review discussions. Does September 3rd (one day after the public holiday) work for everyone? Glen
Me too.
Zach
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:38 AM David Sankel via Boost
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 1:33 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Does September 3rd (one day after the public holiday) work for everyone?
Works for me.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Works for me as well.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:16 PM Zach Laine via Boost
Me too.
Zach
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:38 AM David Sankel via Boost
wrote: On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 1:33 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Does September 3rd (one day after the public holiday) work for
everyone?
Works for me.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (6)
-
David Sankel
-
Glen Fernandes
-
Kristen Shaker
-
Thomas Fowlery
-
Vinnie Falco
-
Zach Laine