On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, 4:13 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 3:07 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So I feel like a sarcastic reply pointing out that the person who has
>> a history of not caring about motivations in their proposal continues
>> to not care about motivations in their proposals is not unreasonable.
>>
>
> A sarcastic reply is never appropriate (for a variety of social reasons I
> don't need to enumerate). In this context a better approach would have been
> silence.
>

I disagree.

As Jason points out, the OP has repeatedly been given the feedback that
giving large amounts of detail about how to implement a proposed feature is
not a substitute for motivation.

*He has repeatedly, actively made the choice to disregard this feedback*,
much to the annoyance of many others on this list.

It's not a bad thing to reply in a way that makes him feel bad about his
behaviour. Maybe it'll make him stop.

We assume good faith, up to a point. The OP is *not making a good faith
effort* to contribute positively. How should such actors be treated?

Silence works in theory, but never in practice, because it requires
everyone's compliance.


>
> --
> -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
> -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supongas Nada
> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>