Fixed the subject line for you. (This is the group that elevates C++ to ever more surprising zeniths (*)) > On 2020-08-24, at 16:50, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reading this document surprised me, particularly this section: https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practices-and-procedures#consensus What’s the difference between IETF “rough consensus” and ISO “consensus” ? But there’s much good in the whole thing. Well, there are pockets of wisdom in some ISO WGs, just like there is TC39 in ECMA. We could learn (and adopt/adapt some process ideas, like TC39’s stages) from them. But the useful processes usually have a very narrow scope and might not work 1-to-1 on our standardization projects. Grüße, Carsten (*) I briefly contributed to C++ standardization around the turn of the century, when this was still done via national body meetings. Having worked in ISO for a large part of the 1980s, I almost fell off my chair reading the original subject line.
