From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-28 19:41:52
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 11:56 AM Zach Laine via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Raising issue on this list with the way WG21 does things accomplishes
> nothing. Our choices as a separate Boost entity are: 1) get involved
> directly and individually with WG21 and fix things, for our individual
> definitions of "fix"; and 2) accept the reality that WG21 actually
> wants to move even faster than it already does* and make it easier for
> Boost to accept new libraries before they are standardized, thereby
> influencing the quality of those submissions.
I disagree. Boost does not need to do anything, the problem we're
discussing is a committee problem. Whether they see it this way or not,
this is the truth.
As long as the committee is willing to "standardize" innovation -- and
there's no indication that they intend to stop, if anything the process is
accelerating -- there is nothing we can do to have library authors go
through the hassle of Boost. Specifically, it is not clear to me that the
lower volume of Boost activity is a problem, nor I think we need to attract
the kind of developer who views Boost as an obstacle to getting their
library standardized ASAP.
This isn't something that can be fixed from within. The last thing we
should be doing is lower the bar in Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk