From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-27 16:02:24
(A new subject, since the thread has evolved past the Text review result).
I spend part of my time in the C++ standards committee. I spend part
of my time in Boost.
I would prefer that my time spent in Boost, and that Boost itself, be
focused on its goals of serving the C++ community and Boost users
(existing ones, and growing to new ones).
If there is benefit of Boost to any other entity, be it the LEWG of
the committee, or some organization, that's great. i.e. When Boost is
adopted by some organization, or when Boost components go into the
standard, that's just a bonus.
But Boost itself shouldn't compromise on quality - in its review
process or what it ships in a Boost distribution, to serve any of
those other interests.
Putting a bunch of experimental libraries into a Boost release just
because people have proposed them for standardization is not something
we should do.
If someone wants to, they can should just start their own project full
of libraries that have not undergone any kind of formal review, and
convince OS distributions to start including that as part of their
packages based on its own merits.
In case there was any misunderstanding on this point: Zach's goals of
standardization are his own, and in Boost we don't have to be
concerned with them. Because we're not changing the review process
because of them, and he's not asking us to.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk