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

On 6/28/2020 12:16 PM, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:22 PM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

...

On 6/27/2020 1:55 PM, Ville Voutilainen via Boost wrote:

...

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 18:48, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

You have raised a bunch of hackles here. The LEWG, along with all other C++ standard committees, seems to me so much less open to debate than Boost is that it is hard to know what to say about your assertion that "This list is not very welcoming". Nor can anything ever be found out from the C++ standards committee why such and such was accepted or rejected, or what the arguments were about after the fact.

Have you tried asking a committee member, or just asking on std-discussion? It also seems to me that there tends to be a multitude of meeting trip reports that cover why such and such was accepted or rejected.

I do not find that the reasons why a proposal is accepted or rejected, as well as the differing opinions of those reviewing the proposal, are available for C++ Standard committees. Yet anyone can search Boost

archives for discussions regarding a library submitted to Boost, since

...

they are all part of the Boost developer mailing list. Therefore while I respect the expertise of those on the various C++ standard committees, and while I understand that those who are on the various C++ standard committees change over time, the lack of historical information

I guess I don't see this as generally the case wrt specific proposals. Most papers, tend to maintain a running history of relevant decisions and that's usually the best source of what transpired. Look at one of mine -- on page 2 there there's a summary related to LEWGI and SG10 feedback. Section 6 goes into more detail on a number of these. Authors do this to help remind themselves and help committee members (meaning cut down rediscussion of already hashed thru points) that aren't able to be in every single discussion of the paper. To me this is actually better than trying to search the mailing list.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1750r1.pdf

My point is that the history of what is said about a proposal by those either voting to accept or reject a proposal is not available in any form unless it is added to the proposal itself by someone. In your link I do not see the discussion about acceptance or rejection of the proposal by anyone, and if I look up most any given proposal, going back nnnn years ago I see nothing in the proposal itself explaining why it was accepted or rejected. Is it really too much to ask that the C++ standards committee keep a record of the discussion for a given proposal which tells why a proposal is accepted to rejected ? I became concerned about this not as just a theoretical problem because an idea I had which I thought would improve C++ was proposed in an even better way 17 years ago and rejected, and yet there is zero information why the proposal was rejected. But I am trying not to focus on my idea but on the general issue that the reasons a proposal are accepted or rejected by the C++ standards committee is completely lost to anyone who was not there at the time when the proposal was "debated". I found this very poor in an age of digital information.