On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 5:14 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I'm not a committee member, just an observer from the outside, but it looks to me that people that aren't familiar with the proposal should abstain from the discussion.
The main issue that I see is that the structure of the committee itself is not aligned with the needs of users. There is no feedback mechanism in place which pushes members in the right direction. There is no qualitative analysis regarding the benefits versus cost of approving a paper. There are no objective measures for comparing two papers to determine which one does the most good. After a paper is accepted and the feature deployed, there is no retrospective quantitative analysis of the achieved benefits versus the expected benefits. There is no process of natural selection which ensures the most productive and talented individuals are prioritized over individuals who contribute little. In the "real world" a business that does not serve the needs of its customers goes bankrupt. But when WG21 fails to serve the needs of C++ users, nothing happens. In fact most of the time they don't even know they are failing the community, as everyone is pursuing their own self-interests. Thanks