Re: [text] [review] Text formal review result

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-28 04:21:32

On 6/27/2020 1:55 PM, Ville Voutilainen via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 18:48, Edward Diener via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> You have raised a bunch of hackles here. The LEWG, along with all other
>> C++ standard committees, seems to me so much less open to debate than
>> Boost is that it is hard to know what to say about your assertion that
>> "This list is not very welcoming". Nor can anything ever be found out
>> from the C++ standards committee why such and such was accepted or
>> rejected, or what the arguments were about after the fact.
> 
> Have you tried asking a committee member, or just asking on std-discussion?
> It also seems to me that there tends to be a multitude of meeting trip reports
> that cover why such and such was accepted or rejected.

I do not find that the reasons why a proposal is accepted or rejected, 
as well as the differing opinions of those reviewing the proposal, are 
available for C++ Standard committees. Yet anyone can search Boost 
archives for discussions regarding a library submitted to Boost, since 
they are all part of the Boost developer mailing list. Therefore while I 
respect the expertise of those on the various C++ standard committees, 
and while I understand that those who are on the various C++ standard 
committees change over time, the lack of historical information 
regarding proposals is a huge negative IMO. I am not against experts 
making decisions in any field, but I am always against those decisions 
not being open so that other people can see the reasons, even after the 
fact, for decisions being made. This is especially true in our age, 
where digital records can provide information much more easily than 
libraries of printed information could in the past. I believe everyone 
has a right to protect personal information, but at the same time I 
believe public information should be open to anyone.

> 
>> poobahs of the C++ standard committee I have often found to be largely
>> unfriendly and closed in their determination that only they really know
>> what is good or not for C++.
> 
> Sure; some of them need a fairly strong rationale to be convinced otherwise. :)

I think it is more like some of them are too egotistical to even listen 
to others who do not have their own reputation. But that is true in any 
field and while I have encountered some who were like that I have also 
dealt with some others who were pretty open to technical arguments. 
Nonetheless I find that even if the debates in Boost get fairly 
contentious sometimes, it is always better to have the debate rather 
than avoid argumentation out of some preconceived notion of "niceness".