Hacker News

points by lowatt 4 days ago | 0 comments

> By voting “no,” an established system, one based primarily on trust and respectful collaboration, has been shaken.

I don't get it. If ISO deliberately requires two levels of approval, why should exercising the second level's voting authority be considered a betrayal of trust?

[–] dannyw 4 days ago

I don't get it either; and have no sides on the fence (been years since I wrote C++; but I have before).

It sounds like there's sufficiently different genuine views here on whether it's right for the standard at this time, and this seems like the process working as designed.

[–] kllrnohj 4 days ago

Because the second level isn't really involved, they are a formality. This isn't unusual, it happens when the range of things a group does has grown so large that it needs to be primarily managed by dedicated subgroups but the rules don't update to delegate all authority to that subgroup.

The members of the broader group that cared strongly about C++ would have just been involved in the WG21 subgroup in the first place, the subgroup that approved it with a 2/3rds majority. So it almost certainly means that a broader group of ISO that normally don't care about what C++ does (and hence aren't involved in WG21) were influenced to vote in the direction the minority of the WG21 wanted.

[–] krautsauer 4 days ago

The Section "The Process" does explain the thinking behind that statement. To rehash: The author thinks that NB's were trusted with the ability to reject by blocking minority for the case that there is new information, but have used that ability in a case where there was no new information.

I have no stake in this entire discussion or C++ and don't know if the premise of this argument is even true. Just curious: is that thinking unhinged?

[–] crote 4 days ago

Note that the author says that this was "the previous practice". There is no mention of this being, say, the sole intended use as mentioned in some bylaws. In fact, if "uncovering of new information" was the sole reason, why not have a confirmation vote in the same body after a mandatory cooldown period?

The author even explicitly states that "errors in the process" are another potential reason for the NB's to vote against a proposal, so why focus solely on the "no new information" argument?

Also, keep in mind that the WG21 operates primarily by consensus[0], which is explicitly not a majority vote. The final vote for Contracts was 114 in favor, 12 opposed, 3 abstaining, which some consider "an unusual level of opposition" with "tangible debate"[1].

I assume the default is for people to trust that the domain experts in the various subcommittees did their work properly, so an in-favor vote would be more a "I trust the subcommittee / I don't care about this feature" than an explicit "I approve of this feature", with an opposing vote basically being "the subcommittee is making a grave error, this is obviously going to blow up in our faces".

Extend this to the NB level, and the disapproval is basically a vote of "Wait, do we really want to standardize something which is still facing very serious opposition?"

[0]: https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practice...

[1]: https://componentsprogramming.com/cpp26-croydon-wg21-meeting...

[–] adastra22 4 days ago

Because they didn’t vote the way the author wanted them to.

That’s not very charitable, but honestly I’ve been trying for five minutes now to find or think up an alternative explanation. And coming up blank.

[–] Pannoniae 4 days ago

A more charitable interpretation is something like royal assent for laws. Yes, the king/queen can always just choose to delay it or even block the law, but that'd be unprecedented and the whole system of parliamentary monarchy would be in a serious crisis.

I think the author is trying to get at like, the actual discussion happens earlier / on the WG21 level, and the ISO vote is treated more of a rubberstamp. And that has changed in this instance.

[–] locknitpicker 4 days ago

> but that'd be unprecedented

Not really. The unprecedented part was how come contracts proponents decided to push a proposal against all feedback and concerns, knowing very well it was falling to build up any form of consensus.

Contracts proponents knew for years the featured proposal was opposed as it was riddled with fundamental technical flaws. The unprecedented part was the way they said "screw them" and pushed forth anyway, hoping the formality would build enough pressure to force anyone opposing the feature to succumb to the bureaucratic pressure and silence their concerns.

This contracts stunt reeks of corporate chicanery. I mean, what was the plan here? Ignore everyone, get the bureaucratic foot in the door, and then blackmail all dissenting voices of sabotaging the process if contracts proponents didn't had their way?

[–] leni536 4 days ago

"Any form of consensus": there was obviously consensus in WG21, hence contracts remained in the draft.

[–] locknitpicker 4 days ago

> "Any form of consensus": there was obviously consensus in WG21, hence contracts remained in the draft.

Contracts have been systematically pulled from the drafts since C++ 2020 as their proponents decided to ignore technical feedback and opted to go for political petty tactics much like those we see today.

Ask yourself this: how come the contracts proposal has been floating for so long, changed so little, have no reference implementations that address any remarks, and you still see the half baked proposal being floated?

And WG21 members did voted against it. Contract proponents repeatedly try to dismiss critics as having been ignored due to the nature of the democratic process, and now are complaining that they themselves see the same democratic process rejecting the proposal yet again, this time after the unprecedented push.

[–] leni536 4 days ago

> And WG21 members did voted against it.

Not most recently, when it was first voted in, then repeatedly voted to remain in when the option to remove it was polled. The most recent consensus of WG21 is reflected in the current draft, established by multiple votes overwhelmingly in favor.

[–] BlackFingolfin 4 days ago

But receiving a majority vote is not the same as building a consensus. I think that's the sticking point here.

[–] bigstrat2003 4 days ago

Personally, I think that if a system to veto something exists, it shouldn't be considered shocking or a betrayal of it gets exercised. Otherwise why have the system?

[–] locknitpicker 4 days ago

> Because they didn’t vote the way the author wanted them to.

That's my opinion as well. It's a smear campaign lashing back at people who dared to point out flaws.