On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:24 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> 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.