On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:03 PM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Please read up on the history. I'm not aware of any specific proposal
> getting
> anywhere near CWG, for example. So, I don't follow your claim that work
> products of SG15 were actually competing for plenary time.
>

(reading...)

Yes that wasn't the right term, it never went to plenary. SG15 forwarded
the Ecosystem IS draft to EWG on time, and the work-item wasn't taken up
for two consecutive meetings. P2656R4 gave the author's reasons for
withdrawing.


> Meaningful C++-related work can be done outside of any ISO-sponsored
> committee.
>

True, and that's what the author chose. He took the Ecosystem work
external. But the demand raised in the SG19 call was narrower than "someone
should do this work." It came from organizations whose procurement policies
require an international standard specifically. For them, external work
lacks the stamp and WG21 lacks the bandwidth. Only an ISO published
standard satisfies that demand.


> Side note: Some of the papers orbiting SG15 had rather interesting
> copyright and
> license claims. I'm pretty sure the one thing ISO is seriously concerned
> about
> is anyone or anything getting in the way of ISO's full copyright ownership
> for
> standards and other ISO publications, regardless of which SC or WG that
> publication originates from.
>

That's fair and what I proposed lands squarely in the "ISO gets full
copyright ownership" bucket. This is an obstacle for community adoption
(P3339's point if I recall).

However, the SG19 observation was different. The distinction is that for
some organizations, ISO copyright isn't the obstacle, it's the credential.
They aren't asking for a free standard, they're asking for an ISO one.

The SC22 stuff is quite new to me, but you probably know it quite well;
could a "New Work Item Proposal" succeed for a separate collection of
standardized C++ libraries, to satisfy the particular segment of
stakeholders who simply cannot use third party libraries? It would also
relieve some of the library standardization pressure on WG21.

Thanks


On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:03 PM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On 7/10/26 14:25, Vinnie Falco via SG19 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:04 AM Guy Davidson <standard.guy_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:standard.guy_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> >
> > It sounds to me like you are discussing part of the SG15 brief.
> >
> >
> > I guess I was too subtle (lol). I'll say it plainly: stakeholders can
> charter a new Working Group under SC22. A sibling of WG21, not a study
> group inside it. The sole product is a second library standard for C++,
> with its own charter, its own convener, and its own tradeoffs on delivery
> and ABI.
> >
> > It sounds like the previous effort was competing for WG21's plenary
> time, which is its own obstacle.
>
> Please read up on the history. I'm not aware of any specific proposal
> getting
> anywhere near CWG, for example. So, I don't follow your claim that work
> products of SG15 were actually competing for plenary time.
>
> > That is evidence the committee is asuboptimal venue,
>
> Meaningful C++-related work can be done outside of any ISO-sponsored
> committee.
>
>
> Side note: Some of the papers orbiting SG15 had rather interesting
> copyright and
> license claims. I'm pretty sure the one thing ISO is seriously concerned
> about
> is anyone or anything getting in the way of ISO's full copyright ownership
> for
> standards and other ISO publications, regardless of which SC or WG that
> publication originates from.
>
> Jens
>

-- 
Regards,
Vinnie
Follow me on GitHub: https://github.com/vinniefalco