On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:49 PM Jeff Garland via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I assume you mean when LEWG basically didn't exist and it was *just LWG*
This structure (with "just LWG") was vastly superior to the current model (LEWG + LWG) in terms of delivering the best value for C++ users. Because when it was just LWG, the group was composed also of great library designers in addition to wordsmiths. By creating the new group LEWG, the great library designers are stuck in LWG where they cannot change anything given to them by LEWG, and meanwhile LEWG is populated by people who just want to "get their library into std" for various personal reasons. Furthermore having "just LWG" created a natural bottleneck: not every library could go in, so decisions weighing the benefits and comparing what brings the best value for the limited committee resources were made more conscientiously. Thanks