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

On 2020-06-27 20:55, 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?

Asking a committee member requires personal interaction, and you have to know who to ask in the first place. Personal interaction is understandably a strong barrier for some. Asking on std-discussion or std-proposals is a possibility. I have tried that a few times, with mixed success. I suspect, a lot of proposal authors don't actively monitor these lists for questions or comments regarding proposals beyond the initial discussion phase, and committee members are either too busy, or not involved in the proposal, or don't reply for any other reason. As someone who haven't attended the committee meetings personally, but prepared a proposal with a representative, I can say that even obtaining the results of discussion of your own proposal is difficult. It is a very reasonable request to have a public searchable access to the result of review and discussion of a given proposal, if only to be able to learn from it or point to when another person comes up with a similar proposal. It may be difficult to implement, but the demand is there.

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.

Trip reports do not provide that information beyond the general results of the most prominent proposals. They do not contain the discussion results on every proposal. Besides, a trip report is a perspective of a single person, who may have not even participated in the proposal you're interested in. You'd have to search multiple personal blogs to find such reports, among other posts, from multiple persons, with no certainty you'll find the information you need in the first place.