From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-10 17:15:07
"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Given the recent "incident" about users complaining about updates to boost
> and the fact that we have a wounderful METHOD that gave us so much respect
> and popularity, I'd like to propose something that's been in my mind for
> quite some time.
> The very high quaility of boost libraries is due to the so-called BOOST
> METHOD (I just coined the term, but how I like it :): the managed and
> peer-reviewed acceptance process.
> But there is a "hole" in this method, once a library is accepted the
> mantainer can do whatever it pleases with it.
That's not a hole; it's essential. If the maintainer couldn't do what
he or she pleased with the library, nobody would ever submit one.
> Of course we all assume and expect the maintainer to keep its hight
> quality, but this is a deviation from the basic "peer-reviewing is a
> requirement" principle.
We have that requirement for entry, but not for maintenance, and it's
> If the assumtion here were grounded we could just as well accept
> libraries directly because we trust the good jugdment of the author;
> but we don't, and there lies our "credibility".
Well, there's a "Zen of Boost" that I think you fail to appreciate
here. We maintain the tension between autonomy and ownership on the
one hand, and oversight and review on the other. It's one of the key
things that's made Boost successful, and I wouldn't want to change it.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk