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

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-28 04:39:20

On 6/27/2020 7:10 PM, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:55 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>>
>> No, I didn't mean to complain about the champion. I'm just saying that
>> this information should be easily accessible as an open resource, like a
>> bug tracker or something, rather than asking the champion or a random
>> committee member. And besides, Internet has better memory than most
>> people. :)
>>
> 
> So ISO has rules about the attribution of comments to people that we have
> to follow.  This is intended to allow for candid discussion amongst
> participants.  So there are notes and resources about discussions that are
> not open to the public -- you have to have attended a meeting to get
> access.  Same applies to some committee mailing lists. Note that you can
> attend a meeting for free and participate in the technical discussion
> without 'joining the committee'.  But yes, this is all the more reason for
> public reviews on boost first as much as possible.

Proposal xxxx was rejected in year nnnn. Please tell me where I can find 
the C++ standards committee discussion of proposal xxxx, and the 
differing opinions and comments of those discussing the proposal, as 
well as the current contact information for those discussing the 
proposal who are still members of a C++ standards committee. Finally I 
should not need to be the author of proposal xxxx to have that 
information since I may well be someone who is interested in xxxx and 
has something important to say about it.

In Boost you can do all that without being anybody special. For the C++ 
standards committee, you can not do any of that, probably even if you 
are a C++ standards committee member much less an outsider. Therefore I 
vastly prefer Boost over the C++ standards committee when it comes to 
discussing or promoting C++ ideas, C++ libraries, or library design.