[cpp-threads] Policy question: c++std-ext, cpp-threads, and many-cc emails

[Boehm, Hans]

I assume Herb really meant just those individuals who are not already on
c++std-ext?

For the individuals who don't object, I'm all in favor.  Cpp-threads
should probably stay separate like
omp-lang.

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk 
> [mailto:cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk] On Behalf 
> Of Mattson, Timothy G
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:27 PM
> To: C++ threads standardisation; c++std-ext at accu.org; ark at acm.org
> Cc: Pete at atarelrim03.atl.hp.com; David Miller; Lawrence 
> Crowl; omp-lang at openmp.org; Terrence.Miller at sun.com; David 
> Miller; Howard Hinnant; Bill Seymour; P.J. Plauger 
> (Dinkumware Ltd); Bjarne Stroustrup; Bronis R. de Supinski; 
> Eric Niebler; Meredith, Alisdair; Becker
> Subject: RE: [cpp-threads] Policy question: c++std-ext, 
> cpp-threads,and many-cc emails
> 
> Herb,
> 
> I think that would be a good idea.  But do not include 
> omp-lang at openmp.org.  Most of the people in that group 
> probably don't want to follow these low level, C++ details.  
> However, please tell Andy to include me 
> (timothy.g.mattson at intel.com).  I don't know how I was 
> dropped from the explicit CC list, but I've only been getting 
> these messages through omp-lang.
> 
> --Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk
> [mailto:cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk] On Behalf 
> Of Herb Sutter
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1:56 PM
> To: c++std-ext at accu.org; ark at acm.org
> Cc: Pete; Bronis R. de Supinski; C++ threads standardisation; 
> David Miller; Lawrence Crowl; omp-lang at openmp.org; 
> Terrence.Miller at sun.com; David Miller; Howard Hinnant; Bill 
> Seymour; P.J. Plauger (Dinkumware Ltd); Bjarne Stroustrup; 
> Meredith,Alisdair; Eric Niebler; Becker
> Subject: [cpp-threads] Policy question: c++std-ext, 
> cpp-threads,and many-cc emails
> 
> A policy question -- would anyone object if I did the following:
> 
> - Asked Andy to add everyone on Cc: to c++std-ext. (Note that 
> they have all attended last week's EWG/LWG concurrency ad-hoc 
> face-to-face meeting, so they meet the bar I've been applying 
> to approve requests by NB nonmembers to join the ISO C++ reflectors.)
> 
> 
> - Deal with exceptions by letting anyone who didn't want to 
> be added to -ext just ask Andy to be removed? (Or if you 
> already know you don't want to, send me and Andy some mail.)
> 
> The reason I ask is to simplify communication, because we're 
> having great discussions that I think are at a point that 
> they now do routinely belong on c++std-ext (which is on these 
> mail threads anyway). We could still cc: cpp-threads and 
> omp-lang on these uses to continue our useful liaison 
> cross-discussions, but even then at least we'd be down to "To:
> c++std-ext, Cc: cpp-threads, omp-lang" instead of the verbose lists
> we've been using throughout August.
> 
> How would that sound?
> 
> Herb
> 
> 
> 
> --
> cpp-threads mailing list
> cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk
> http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads
> 
> --
> cpp-threads mailing list
> cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk
> http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads
>