From: mjklaim@gmail.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
My definition of a "Booster" is anyone who has been participating in Boost, and the admittedly vague definition of "participating" is very broad, and goes far beyond library authors.
Wouldn't it be a problem for the C++ commitee? My understanding it that the mailing list is voluntarily kept closed to avoid a lot of problem like trolling or out-of-scope subjects that occur naturally in open communities (even boost). I might be wrong, I didn't read any official info about this.
But allowing this large definition of boosters to be able to mail the C++ committee mailing list would then open a breach for them, wouldn't it?
Not everyone agrees with the closed nature of the committee mailing lists. I for one think that since C++ is an open standard, the standard's development should happen completely in the open, too - that is, everyone should have read access to the committee mailing lists. Limiting write access is reasonable to facilitate efficient operation of the Committee, as you say. Here we could have a scheme where a potential "Booster" requests write access on boost-dev, and an SC commmittee member (or a library author, if that's too much work for the SC committee) approves the request at their discretion. Library authors would get write access up-front. Regards, Nate