Balloting has completed for C++26. Unfortunately it was Disapproved

Robert Seacord 7h Report this post Balloting has completed for C++26. Unfortunately it was Disapproved P-Members voting: 12 in favor out of 20 = 60 % (requirement >= 66.66%) (P-Members having abstained are not counted in this vote.) Member bodies voting: 9 negative votes out of 22 = 41 % (requirement <= 25%) Sort of a sad day for the C++ community. Hopefully we can heal and move on from this in a productive manner.

C++26 的投票已经结束。遗憾的是，该草案未获通过。参与投票的 P 成员中，12 票赞成，共 20 票（赞成率 60%，要求 >= 66.66%）（弃权的 P 成员不计入此次投票）。在成员机构投票中，22 票中有 9 票反对（反对率 41%，要求 <= 25%）。这对 C++ 社区来说是一个令人难过的日子。希望我们能够治愈伤痛，并以富有成效的方式继续前进。

J. Daniel Garcia 4h Report this comment Not only that Robert Seacord. There were 12 countries that abstained. In several cases because they could not reach to a common position. That is another signal of a contested draft. Please, note that before C++26 all other standards passed unanimously.

J. Daniel Garcia 4 小时前回复：Robert Seacord，不仅如此。有 12 个国家弃权。在某些情况下，是因为他们无法达成共识。这是草案存在争议的另一个信号。请注意，在 C++26 之前，所有其他标准都是全票通过的。

Harald Achitz 4h Report this comment Why should this be a sad day for the C++ community? Taking into account the number of P-members who abstained due to a lack of consensus, which makes the NO vote even more significant, sinking such a flawed contracts proposal is a good sign of a healthy, engaged, and competent community at the national body level. That some people were willing to put the entire C++26 standard at risk to push through such a controversial and deeply flawed proposal is, of course, concerning. Fortunately, the national bodies recognized the problem before it was too late. And perhaps it is also a clear signal that WG21’s ‘experts in the room’ voting approach needs to be reconsidered.

Harald Achitz 4 小时前回复：为什么这对 C++ 社区来说是一个悲伤的日子？考虑到由于缺乏共识而弃权的 P 成员数量，这使得反对票更具分量。否决这样一个有缺陷的合同提案，是国家机构层面社区健康、积极且称职的一个好迹象。有些人竟然愿意为了强行通过这样一个充满争议且存在严重缺陷的提案，而将整个 C++26 标准置于风险之中，这当然令人担忧。幸运的是，各国机构在为时已晚之前意识到了这个问题。这或许也清楚地表明，WG21 的“专家在场”投票方式需要重新考虑。

Roger Scott 5h Report this comment I assume this was not a complete surprise and that those who voted against it had voiced opposition or at least reservations previously? Is the most promising path forward to reduce the scope and try again? Or were there things excluded that people really wanted?

Roger Scott 5 小时前回复：我想这并不完全令人意外，那些投反对票的人之前是否已经表达过反对意见或至少有保留意见？未来最有希望的路径是缩小范围并重试吗？还是说有什么人们真正想要的东西被排除了？

Leonard F Levine 5h Report this comment Such is the life of standards. Anything particular?

Leonard F Levine 5 小时前回复：这就是标准制定的常态。有什么特别之处吗？

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 4h Report this comment It is hard to heal after the decades of the same social issues reappearing. What lessons should we learn to be able to move on in a productive manner?

René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 4 小时前回复：在同样的社会问题反复出现几十年后，很难治愈。我们应该吸取什么教训，才能以富有成效的方式继续前进？

Steve Downey 2h Report this comment I don’t get the arithmetic to work out? 12 in favor out of 20 who did not abstain gets 8 voting against, but then we have 9 negative votes out of 22? Not that it matters terribly since it doesn’t seem very close.

Steve Downey 2 小时前回复：我没算明白这个账？20 个未弃权的成员中有 12 个赞成，意味着有 8 个反对，但为什么又有 22 个成员中有 9 个反对票？不过这似乎并不重要，因为结果看起来差距并不小。

Lieven De Cock 6h Report this comment So sad to hear this, but indeed, let’s learn from this, and regroup and move on.

Lieven De Cock 6 小时前回复：听到这个消息很难过，但确实，让我们从中吸取教训，重整旗鼓，继续前进。

Can Ç. 5h Report this comment It’s so over

Can Ç. 5 小时前回复：一切都结束了。