CA-001 Participation in standard development

[wg21bot]

The standard, and the full set of changes to the working doc, is too big for one person to know thoroughly (at least for the majority of members where committee work is not a large portion of their fulltime job) - which is OK - we rely on and trust other members of the committee, and other members of our NB to fill in the gaps where necessary. This is a technical necessity. However, the process of who participates in standardization and who is consequently excluded, has lowered my faith in, and thus ability to rely on and trust, the rest of the committee. Both my faith in the character of the committee, but moreso my faith that the committee is a good representation of the C++ community, has been altered. Thus it is becoming increasingly difficul to make a technical assessment of the standard, and an assessment of how well it meets the needs of the larger C++ community.

Work with ISO (or work around ISO) to enact rules that do not cause a large proportion of the C++ community to feel unwelcome.

Observations of the secretariat

SC 22 CM – OUT OF SCOPE – NOT FOR DISCUSSION. This does not comment on the content of the draft.

[jfbastien]

EWG and LEWG should chime in to this since they're the primary funnels through which new papers much pass.

[brycelelbach]

This is an important topic, but far outside the mandate of Library Evolution.

[brycelelbach]

This should probably be the subject of an evening session or plenary discussion.

[jensmaurer]

Before we get excited about this "comment", let's see whether it actually ended up in the official NB comment document from ISO.

[brycelelbach]

No one is excited about this situation.

[jensmaurer]

See the SC22 remark. This will not be discussed in WG21.