Subject: Re: [boost] C++ Standards Committee membership for Boost?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-25 06:31:16
on Thu May 10 2012, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
And there's some indication that said nature may be changing. Stay
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk