On Saturday 20 July 2024 05:12:43 GMT-7 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-
Proposals wrote:
> For the people who really want P2025, I'm happy to market P3357 as a stop
> gap which will become deprecated at some point in the future.
>
> For the people who don't want P2025, I'm happy to market P3357 as an
> alternative to P2025.

There's only one audience and that's the committee, starting with the EWG and
LEWG.

You need to convince them by writing in your paper that yours is required
because one or both of these conditions are true:

a) P2025 is unlikely to see adoption in the near and medium term (or ever),
for technical reasons that cannot be easily solved

b) the need is so pressing that) a solution is needed *now*

I don't think you can argue (b) in the first place. You'd have to show evidence
that people are writing lots of workarounds that wouldn't be needed if we had
either feature, that they are slow, cumbersome and/or error-prone. That means
real-world examples, not "return locked mutex" which is a use-case no one
needs.

And I think to argue (b) to a successful level, you'll need to argue (a) too.
Because if the need were so great but P2025 were within grasp, the committee
would probably have the same reaction as Tiago did: let's just get P2025 done
right.

In other wrods, in order for P3357 to be successful, you'll have to kill
P2025.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering