Re: [text] [review] Text formal review result

From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-27 14:57:16

Glen, thanks for managing the review.

Glen Fernandes wrote:
> 1. For a library of this size (all three layers are of non-trivial
> implementation size), I hoped for more reviews and participation.

Yes, I found this rather dispiriting. And predictably, we are now
seeing more words being written contemplating what has gone wrong
than were written during the review itself. To the people who want
to suggest how to improve things, I think the most useful thing you
could tell us is why you individually did not submit a review.

While preparing my review I looked at the mailing list archive
from the time of the Boost.Locale review, and it is striking how
much quieter this list is now than a few years ago. Perhaps this
is simply because std::C++ now has things like shared_ptr and
tuple and optional etc. which a decade ago required Boost - if
fewer people now need to use Boost then there are fewer people
here to submit reviews. Which is a good thing, maybe. Does anyone
know if the number of list subscribers has declined over the years?

Zach Laine wrote:
> The status quo is that it's simply so much easier to submit 
> straight to LEWG that only a crazy person would do otherwise 
> [i.e. to Boost]

I'm surprised by the suggestion that it's easier to work with
the standards committees than with Boost. For a start, literally
anyone can subscribe to this list and engage with discussions
free of charge. According to isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation,
the policy for access to the WG21 email lists is they are open to:

* Any member of a national body that participates in WG21,
including any employee of a company that is already a member of
a national body. [Cost: $1,950 per year in the US.]

* Any person who has already attended a face-to-face meeting in
the past. This requirement helps preserve the signal-to-noise
ratio by limiting access to people who have demonstrated they're
serious about participating. ["Serious about participating", or
"rich and like intercontinental travel and don't believe in
climate change"?]

* (new) For a Study Group email list, the SG chair may also at
their own discretion add any new expert who wants to participate.
In particular, SGs are especially designed to be open and
inclusive to experts in their field. [So if I were an "expert"
in Unicode - which I'm not! - I could ask the Unicode SG chair
to add me, which they may or may not do at their discretion.]

I really don't see how that could possibly be easier, or (in
reference to another part of Zach's message) more welcoming
than Boost!

Regards, Phil.