From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 18:28:04
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | > 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.
> Well, both me and Doug asked explicitly about our respective libraries.
> I got a "not yet" and he got an "ok". That's easy; no time wasted.
Maybe, but getting an "OK" in a LWG straw poll doesn't amount to
"knowing the committee are willing to accept" an as-yet-unwritten
proposal. First of all, the LWG is not the whole committee.
Secondly, the LWG that looks at the proposal the proposal may be
composed of different people than the LWG that responds to a straw
poll. Finally, an unwritten proposal idea that is not blatantly
inappropriate is usually met with the response that the LWG needs more
information in order to form an opinion.
If you had said, "I encourage people to get a feel for the opinion of
the LWG on an idea before writing a proposal," I'd have said that was
good advice. What you wrote seems to encourage an attempt to get
guaranteed acceptance before even making a mature proposal. That is
likely to result in antagonism that would undermine your proposal's
> | > 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.
> What else could "I see it like this" possibly mean? That it was your
Nothing else, but it is very common for statements of individual
committee participants to be interpreted as "the mood of the
committee," despite being clear statements of personal opinion. I
wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen here.
> > 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.
> but how should people know if their proposal has got a chance if not by
By all means, ask if your proposal has a chance -- but you cannot
"_know_ the committee are willing to accept" anything until you submit
-- 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