[eru]

Thanks! (In my naive ways, I would have guessed that perhaps speaking rights were restricted, but that everyone was allowed to read and listen.)

The ANSI/ISO way seems like the opposite of what you'd want in a (open) programming language, doesn't it?

[Sharlin]

The C++ working group is one of the most open ones, though. All proposal papers, meeting minutes, even the draft standard documents are freely available at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/, as are the archives of the various mailing lists.

(BTW, if anyone upvotes this, I'm going to lose my 1337 karma. Oh well.)

[pjmlp]

You get to know what is going on by posts from members, like this one

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/5894415f-...

The ANSI/ISO way is the best way to standardize technology. The alternative being a reference implementation subject to a benevolent dictator with everyone discussing what the right license should be.

Any implementor knows what is supposed to be compliant with, as long as, its implementation follows a well defined standard, regardless of what license it decides to publish under and what type of implementation (compiler/interpreter/JIT/,...)

[eru]

Thanks for the link!

> The ANSI/ISO way is the best way to standardize technology. The alternative being a reference implementation subject to a benevolent dictator with everyone discussing what the right license should be.

That's a false dilemma. You can have a standard that's discussed and decided on in a forum that's not ANSI/ISO.

[roel_v]

That's just nitpicking. Maybe the GP could have said "The model of the ANSI/ISO way is the best way to standardize technology.", but the sentence after that described in a very apt way the vast majority of "standards" not build by a formal committee, with actual travel budgets and a commitment to make things work for the medium term (10 years, at a minimum).