On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:29 PM Ben Craig <ben.craig@ni.com> wrote:

I’ve heard some off-list questions about what wg21 can and cannot do, particularly when it comes to things regarding package management. I’m hoping to get some clarifications here.

Does wg21 (and SG15) have the authority to produce a specification for a package / dependency manager?

Specification? Perhaps.

What if the package manager isn’t just a C++ package / dependency manager, but a general purpose package / dependency manager?

Again, if it's specification.

Practically speaking, I expect SG15 to be primarily a clearinghouse for discussion between the community and the committee on questions of tooling and ecosystem - the output from SG15 may primarily be standing documents, position papers, etc, and very little of the normal WG21 output (specification).

(BIG NOTE: I am not asking if wg21 and sg15 have the time or the willingness. I’m just asking if it is allowable. I don’t expect the time or willingness questions to be answerable on the mailing lists.)

Here’s a relevant note from the ISO Code of Conduct ( https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/publications/en/pub100397.pdf )

“Agree to a clear purpose and scope: We are committed to having a clear purpose, scope, objectives and plan to ensure the timely development of International Standards.”

Do we need to agree somewhere as to what the scope of wg21 is, or has that scope been agreed upon and set in a standing document somewhere?

_______________________________________________
Tooling mailing list
Tooling@isocpp.open-std.org
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling