On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017, Niall Douglas wrote:
But you need to take a very different approach to the one you are taking. I know this will sound rich coming from me, but you are being too confrontational. Proposing a set of bye laws from outside the SC is confrontational.
The SC asked Rene to do this, didn't they? i.e. His help was solicited at CppCon.
Correct. It went like this: * I arrived at the conference, happy to be distracted from seriously bad stuff that was happening to me personally. And really intent on not thinking about Boost much. * I was cornered (my entrance badge was held hostage) into talking to certain SC people to reconcile. I had a bunch of drinks that made that experience tolerable. * I was happily enjoying the conference. And having some interesting discussions about build systems and the C++ ecosystem, thanks to Izzy for fueling some of that :-) * I was asked to have a discussion as to moving forward with cmake. I spoke maybe 6 words in that conversation. * I was asked to talk with other SC members about the concerns that the cmake decision raised in how that decision was made. * I pointed out my, and others, concerns about the lack of transparency and lack of involvement. And I mentioned that in other organizations such rules are written down in documents like by-laws. * They asked me to write up some by-laws for them to consider. * I spent two weeks of some spare time doing that. And then getting some private proofreading on that result. * I then posted them here. Because I believe that we should discuss such things in public before proposing them to the SC for consideration. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net