Re: [Boost] [Describe] Summary Review Summary

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-15 19:26:57

On 3/15/21 12:01 PM, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:
> I fully agree with regard to the committee. It has been nothing but a
> cause of frustration and anger for the community of developers who
> actually use C++ to get work done. I have the strong impression that
> very few on the committee ever produce anything of strategic value for
> their employers.

LOL - I didn't mean to be critical of the committee.  I merely wanted to 
encourage people to think about the differences between how the commitee 
address their problem with how boost address a somewhat similar problem. 
  It's very interesting to me that such similar problems have such 
differing approaches to their solution.  It's also fascinating to me how 
approaches other than the default - consensus via majority rule - often 
leads to better results.

I'm very curious about the genesis of the Boost review process.  I'd 
like to see someone who knows about this write something up (naming 
names!) for the web site documenting this for posterity.  Where are the 
boost equivalent of "federalist papers"?

As to the committee, I've been critical of the process to the point of 
snarkyness.  I'm trying to diminish that as I get older.  But I think a 
lot of people feel that the Committee needs to evolve in some way to be 
more effective.  Of course we have to agree on what that way is - and ...

Robert Ramey