In article <2t2iu2$219@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@taumet.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 770927762@graceland.att.com, pjl@graceland.att.com (Paul J. Lucas) writes:
>> Also my humble operator-> proposal which has been accepted.
>>--
>> - Paul J. Lucas
>>   AT&T Bell Laboratories
>>   Naperville, IL
>
>While Bell Labs is represented on the C++ Committee, no one from
>Naperville is on the Committee, and Paul in particular is not.
>
>Will this serve as an existence proof that you don't have to be
>on the Committee to get a proposal accepted? (Please note that MANY
>proposals from active Committee members have been rejected, so
>let's not be petty.)

 Note also: Paul's proposal was seen to solve a real problem.
It was not an "I would like this extra feature" proposal.
Committee members or those with the right contacts are more likely
to be in a postion to make this sort of proposal.

 I can attest to the fact that  "extra feature proposals"
from Committee members are treated just as hard as (if not harder than)
those from outsiders :-)  Bjarnes proposals tend to be
looked on more favourbly but are still subject to rigorous
analysis. "New Style Casts" were thrown out the first time.
It took THREE papers from Bjarne, lots of discussion, with modifications
to the "legalese" by me and Sean Corfield and some changes
(old style casts NOT deprecated as Bjarne wanted) to get the proposal
in a form that could be accepted -- and it almost wasnt.

 Operator.() was considered at least three times
to my knowledge and finally rejected.

 In BOTH cases: the intent (safer casts, smart references)
was accepted. In the first case, an acceptable solution was finally
wrought, in the latter the proposed one was found inadequate.
(The symmetry argument, although strong, was not considered enough)
(Bjarne not only suggested an alternative, but implemented and tested
it on real programmers and found it also to be inadequate)

 In my opinion, outsiders' proposals ARE fairly treated.
What I do not like much is that access to the proceedings
is very useful in writing a proposal; the public, in my opinion,
does have a significant disadvantage there over committee members.
By the time proceedings are fully open (ANSI public review),
extension proposals are very unlikely to be considered seriously at all.

 Given the constraints, Bjarne has posted several times
to this forum the details on how to submit a proposal. I dont see
how he, or anyone else individually, could have done more:
changing the nature of ISO and ANSI processes is beyond the
committee's juristriction and charter. (As it is, the committee
has been very liberal interpreting some of them)


--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,      CSERVE:10236.1703
        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,     Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA

In article 770927762@graceland.att.com, pjl@graceland.att.com (Paul J. Lucas) writes:
> Also my humble operator-> proposal which has been accepted.
>--
> - Paul J. Lucas
>   AT&T Bell Laboratories
>   Naperville, IL

While Bell Labs is represented on the C++ Committee, no one from
Naperville is on the Committee, and Paul in particular is not.

Will this serve as an existence proof that you don't have to be
on the Committee to get a proposal accepted? (Please note that MANY
proposals from active Committee members have been rejected, so
let's not be petty.)

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com