On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 20:33, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > I'm also not an expert. :) My understanding is that for the purposes of the "Audience" field, literally all you have to do is categorize your paper as one of three kinds: "CWG," "LWG," or both. Once you've marked your paper appropriately as "CWG" and/or "LWG", then that specific paper's progress through the EWGI->EWG->CWG and/or LEWGI/LEWG/LWG funnels will be tracked in real time by
>> > https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues
>>
>> I am an expert, and that's wholly incorrect. This paper should have
>> EWG as its target audience; while the nullopt part
>> of it is library-only, it's proposing the general extension that the
>> special null types for nullable handles become comparable,
>> and doing so across library types and built-in types.
>
>
> I agree that this paper is targeting both the EWG->CWG funnel and the LEWG->LWG funnel. According to my understanding, that means its "Audience:" should list both EWG and LEWG (or both CWG and LWG; or both EWG and LWG; I claim it doesn't particularly matter which stage(s) of the pipeline you name in the paper, because it's going to change over time anyway).
>
> Could you elaborate on your reasons for describing this model of audience-selection as "wholly incorrect," and suggest a different model?

You suggested that CWG or LWG are appropriate target audiences for a
paper like this. They're not. That's wholly incorrect. Extensions
go to EWG or LEWG first.

> Some authors do update their targets to match the paper's progress through the pipeline, e.g. Jean-Heyd Meneide's P1682R0 said "LEWG" but P1682R1 said "LWG"
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1682r0.html
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1682r1.html
> However, my mental model says that that kind of updating is unnecessary (certainly not harmful, but not positively helpful to scheduling) because at best it's redundant with the source of truth https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues and at worst it conflicts with the source of truth https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues .

Your mental model is your mental model, but it's not based on how the
committee works.

> I don't immediately see any papers in the current mailing that list "EWGI" or "LEWGI" in their target "Audience"s (but I probably missed some, especially if they gave the SG number instead).
> Some list a whole breadcrumb trail, e.g. "SG14, LEWG, LWG, WG21"; again my understanding is that that's not harmful but AFAIK not particularly helpful either. (Although I can see how "SG14, LEWG" would be a way of communicating "I think this is a behavior-changing library proposal and I want it to be

Right, AFAYK, which is not very far.