Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-29 01:18:40

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 1:32 PM Zach Laine via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> > Specifically, it is not clear to me that the
> > lower volume of Boost activity is a problem
>
> We seem to be getting lower and lower numbers of reviewers.  I think
> that's a problem, and I think increasing the number of active
> participants may help solve that (or at least I hope so).

I agree that lower number of reviewers is a problem. I meant that it is not
clear if a lower number of submissions 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.
>
> I care about the quality of submissions to Boost, and I don't want to
> lower that regardless of what WG1 does or does not do.  I also care
> about stopping untested library additions from moving through LEWG.  I
> think Boost *could* be a partial solution to that.  I don't think
> those goals need to be at odds.

They are not at odds, they're orthogonal.

Realistically, I think that the committee will continue to "standardize"
innovation, and there's nothing that can be done to stop that (I'd love to
be proven wrong).

Independently, we can work to make Boost better, though I am not sure how.
I agree that the mailing list is archaic, but it works great, and I don't
think it's an obstacle for anyone. Perhaps I'm wrong about this.