3 ms·

I know you're joking, but the government had asked for comments on some of this work previously, and part of the C++ committee did in fact respond. I had read

I know you're joking, but the government had asked for comments on some of this work previously, and part of the C++ committee did in fact respond. I had read all 200+ responses, and was planning on writing up a post about them, because it is interesting, but I've had other things going on this month, and they actually shipped this before I managed to do so. Oh well, maybe I'll still end up doing this. Anyway, there's a lot of junk in there, but out of major organizations, the vast majority were pro, a few were ambivalent, and the committee's response stuck out as one of the only strongly anti responses. (It was also weird for other reasons that turned out to be a benign misunderstanding.)

consumer451 3y ago
> was planning on writing up a post about them, because it is interesting It is very interesting, and I hope that you still do a write up. > It was also weird for other reasons that turned out to be a benign misunderstanding. I would love to know more about this part, maybe just to understand a bit more about how these bureaucratic things work, which while less technical are also interesting.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  > I would love to know more about this part alilleybrinker was the one who got to the bottom of it, so I'll just post his words directly: https://hachyderm.io/@alilleybrinker/111591518571322904 https://hachyderm.io/@alilleybrinker/111591518571322904 The short of it was that it was weirdly evasive around who the authors were, and that ultimately stemmed from a misunderstanding of the form, not from some attempt to hide who they were.
trealira 3y ago
For convenience's sake, these are the links to the RFI and the ISO C++ Direction Group's response: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17239/request-for-information-on-open-source-software-security-areas-of-long-term-focus-and-prioritization https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ONCD-2023-0002-0020 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ONCD-2023-0002-0020

consumer451 3y ago

> was planning on writing up a post about them, because it is interesting It is very interesting, and I hope that you still do a write up. > It was also weird for other reasons that turned out to be a benign misunderstanding. I would love to know more about this part, maybe just to understand a bit more about how these bureaucratic things work, which while less technical are also interesting.

steveklabnik 3y ago
> I would love to know more about this part alilleybrinker was the one who got to the bottom of it, so I'll just post his words directly: https://hachyderm.io/@alilleybrinker/111591518571322904 https://hachyderm.io/@alilleybrinker/111591518571322904 The short of it was that it was weirdly evasive around who the authors were, and that ultimately stemmed from a misunderstanding of the form, not from some attempt to hide who they were.

trealira 3y ago

For convenience's sake, these are the links to the RFI and the ISO C++ Direction Group's response: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17239/request-for-information-on-open-source-software-security-areas-of-long-term-focus-and-prioritization https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ONCD-2023-0002-0020 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ONCD-2023-0002-0020