Subject: Re: [boost] Draft copy - Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-18 22:41:24
On 10/18/2018 04:19 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> Obviously this is a novelty in the context of Boost.Â At the same time
> the idea of accepting multiple submissions for the same functionality is
> also a novelty for boost.
Not entirely novel. Does anyone remember the futures review?
>Â I think it is necessary in this case.Â But I
> was concerned about complaints that the process might not be fair.Â I'm
> also sensitive to complaints that Boost doesn't represent all groups
> "fairly". So I thought I'd include this idea.Â It's also true that it's
> orthogonal to the actual substance at hand and I don't have a huge
> amount of personal ego involved in this aspect. I'm happy to go along
> with the consensus.Â And I'd like to hear what others think.
Well, you can count me opposed. I don't think
it adds anything other than a hassle.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk