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

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-27 23:00:01

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:19 PM Ville Voutilainen via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 23:06, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-06-27 20:55, Ville Voutilainen via Boost wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 18:48, Edward Diener via Boost
> > > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >> You have raised a bunch of hackles here. The LEWG, along with all
> other
> > >> C++ standard committees, seems to me so much less open to debate than
> > >> Boost is that it is hard to know what to say about your assertion that
> > >> "This list is not very welcoming". Nor can anything ever be found out
> > >> from the C++ standards committee why such and such was accepted or
> > >> rejected, or what the arguments were about after the fact.
> > >
> > > Have you tried asking a committee member, or just asking on
> std-discussion?
> >
> > Asking a committee member requires personal interaction, and you have to
> > know who to ask in the first place. Personal interaction is
> > understandably a strong barrier for some.
>
> Well, for future reference, I am happy to entertain reasonable
> requests for "why was this thing accepted/rejected,
> can you outline the discussion and the arguments?".
>
>
Agree Ville.  Andrey you're having a conversation with committee members
now -- although I suppose that's not obvious.  Zach, Glen, Ville, J. Wakely
will pop in here as well.  You know where to get a hold of me -- I'd be
happy to answer any questions I can.  Of course the problem is that we all
can't possibly now track all the proposals and discussions of the
committee.  And therein lies part the problem -- I'd like more of the smart
people on this list looking at stuff before the committee is spending time
on it.

Oh, and thank you for your many contributions to my library :)

Jeff