Re: [Boost] [Describe] Summary Review Summary

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-17 18:02:12

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:24 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The statement to which I was responding was this:
>
>  >> On 15.03.21 22:37, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
>  >>> The committee seems to be concerned more with internal and external
>  >>> politics than with serving the community. If that wasn't true there
>  > would
>  >>> be ZERO library additions that haven't been battle hardened by being
>  >>> deployed and established themselves as the defacto standard already.
>
> This is very much talking about the motivation (or "concern") of the
> committee.

Yes, I said "concern" not "motivation".

If your goal is standardization, convincing the users is utterly irrelevant
to success. Worse, it is a lose-lose proposition, you might get one and a
half stars on GitHub which doesn't look too good. I remember Niall giving
(good) advice that if the goal is standardization, it is best to not bother
with a Boost review, either: it adds a lot more work that is irrelevant to
achieving your goal, plus you risk rejection which doesn't look too good.

As for convincing the committee, I don't think that's possible from the
outside, much less on this platform.