On 19 May 2016 at 4:32, Rob Stewart wrote:
bad for insiders), the steering committee somehow came to the conclusion that their job wasn't to steer.
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.
It's funny to see the same arguments rehearsed here again. Slightly different people, otherwise same arguments. 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. 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.
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. David - you may find searching the previous posts to boost-steering about leadership of use when crafting your formal proposal. Also David, if you decide to do this, feel free to run any such proposal past me beforehand. I can probably loop in a few others with an interest in this topic. I've given up on leading out any charges on this stuff after never ending recalcitrance and refusal to consider change, but I'm happy to assist you or anyone else in pushing for real change. I'd still much rather change from within than an inevitable eventual hostile fork. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/