On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, 4:13 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 3:07 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals