From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 20:49:31
"Iain K. Hanson" <ikh_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 07:28:04PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > |
>> > | 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, I fully accept the spirit of your post and of Beman's preceeding
> and I think I pretty much get the gist. However, the implication ofn the
> is that if I am not a member of the committee then my proposal is at a
> disadvantage because I can not lobby on the reflectors.
Large (and very important, technically complex) portions of TR1 came from
John Maddock and Peter Dimov, who are not members of the committee and AFAIK
have never attended a committee meeting. They gained the respect of the
committee with their proposals, have been invited to participate on the
committee's reflectors, and are often quoted by committee members as
> Could you or Beman elaborate on the position of a boost member who is not
> member of the comittee and the process that they can follow for making
> a proposal to the committee without being a member.
One way is to come to a meeting (and present your proposal, if it is ready).
See http://www.boost.org/more/cpp_committee_meetings.html; there is a
slightly updated version in CVS.
If that isn't possible, it helps to find a committee member to act as your
proposal's champion. There are six or eight Boosters who attend most
meetings, and even more who attend occasionally. One or more of us usually
acts as a champion for any proposals coming out of Boost when the proposer
isn't present. Boosters who are also committee members also comment on
private drafts of proposals, and that hopefully helps round off rough edges.
Proposals don't have to be 100% perfect to gain the committee's attension,
either, particularly version 1 proposals.
> Are we at a disadvantage?
Not really. John Maddock and Peter Dimov are existance proofs of that. Any
proposal coming out of Boost tends to have lots of credibility - we have
such a wonderful track record that committee members sometimes have to
remind themselves that good proposals can come from non-boost sources, too.
Almost all committee members are supportive of Boost, even if they are not
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk