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