Subject: Re: [boost] C++ Standards Committee membership for Boost?
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-10 16:15:23
> From: mjklaim_at_[hidden]
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > My definition of a "Booster" is anyone who has been participating in
> > Boost, and the admittedly vague definition of "participating" is very
> > broad, and goes far beyond library authors.
> Wouldn't it be a problem for the C++ commitee?
> My understanding it that the mailing list is voluntarily kept closed to
> a lot of problem like trolling or out-of-scope subjects that occur
> naturally in
> open communities (even boost). I might be wrong, I didn't read any official
> info about this.
> But allowing this large definition of boosters to be able to mail the
> C++ committee mailing list
> would then open a breach for them, wouldn't it?
Not everyone agrees with the closed nature of the committee mailing lists.
I for one think that since C++ is an open standard, the standard's development
should happen completely in the open, too - that is, everyone should have read
access to the committee mailing lists.
Limiting write access is reasonable to facilitate efficient operation of the
Committee, as you say. Here we could have a scheme where a potential "Booster"
requests write access on boost-dev, and an SC commmittee member (or a library
author, if that's too much work for the SC committee) approves the request at
their discretion. Library authors would get write access up-front.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk