From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 10:57:21
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | news:d4gi2c$2jd$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> | > In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart pointer...
> | That isn't what happened. The committee's wiki describes the LWG's
> | position:
> | "No support for a policy-based framework at this time. This is a
> | refinement of Loki, but, while Loki is in use, this refinement
> | isn't. We'll consider such a proposal later, if there is widespread
> | practice and strong arguments for it."
> | "No support ... at this time." is very different from rejection.
> maybe, I didn't mention why it was "rejected" but I don't see any
> conceptual difference; I strongly encourage people to not write a
> proposal before they know the committee are willing to accept it.
Speaking as someone who has been involved in this process since 1996,
IMO that's very bad advice. There's hardly any way to even get an
inkling of whether the committee are willing to accept most proposals
without writing and submitting them.
> I see it like this: we are very limited in resources in the library
> working group and we want to focus on libraries that can be used by
> as many users as possible. And that means a policy-based smart
> pointer is probably not going into the standard.
To all who are reading: I just want to emphasize that this is
Thorsten's personal viewpoint and doesn't neccessarily reflect the
opinion of others.
> I think the comments on the wiki underestimates the objection towards
> the proposal; When Andrei presented it in Seatle, he was left with the
> feeling that people really liked the idea; so Dave wrote the proposal
> only to get it "put on hold". A lot of waisted work IMO. We should be
> more honest about this stuff in the LWG so we don't push away people
> trying to help us.
I think it's very wrong to imply there was any dishonesty involved,
and especially in this forum where the LWG members can't respond. If
you want to have this conversation you should do it on the LWG
> Ideally every proposal should be pre-approved by the comittee
I'd ask what you mean by "pre-approved," but that should really be
discussed on a committee reflector, not here.
> and at least one guy from the LWG should cooporate with the team
> doing a specific library to ensure it turns out to be what the LWG
> is looking for.
The LWG and the committee aren't of one mind; it's a group of people
with varied outlooks and shifting opinions. Getting an experienced
committee member to champion any proposal is a smart thing to do, but
it's the responsibility of the proposer, not the committee.
> I don't mind doing work for free---as long as it is not waisted;
> waisted work would **** me off.
If you want to be sure to avoid wasted work you need to participate in
the committee process and build consensus on the reflectors between
meetings... and even then it is possible to fail. Dave H. didn't do
that AFAICT. There's no good reason to think that Andrei's impression
that "people really liked the idea" should be enough to ensure that
the next proposal would be accepted.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk