Subject: Re: [boost] Review Process [was: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB (license changed to BSL)?]
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-19 05:30:03
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 2011/1/19 Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak_at_[hidden]>:
>>> From: Joachim Faulhaber
>>> 2011/1/18 Gordon Woodhull <gordon_at_[hidden]>:
>>> > Right now it's suggested but not required that authors participate in
>>> reviews before submitting
>>> libraries. If this were required, and esp if authors had worked as
>>> review manager assistants, this
>>> would help make sure that they understand the review process before
>>> submitting (as well as helping to
>>> unlock the review queue).
>>> and thanks for helping to unlock the review process of Robert
>>> Kawulak's Constrained Value library as *the first* Review Manager
>>> Assistant of Boost :)
>> Indeed, Gordon couldn't constitute a better precedent for this idea
>> putting a lot of valuable work into this.
> Because most of this process was communicated off-list, here is some
> information of what happened:
> Although Robert had a review manager and a successful review with a
> majority of yes votes, the project was trapped, because the review
> manager did not find time to summarize the discussion, sort out the
> conditionals and declare the final results.
we will need another RMA for the review of Boost.Move as OvermindDL1 doesn't
answer to the specific requests in this ML and personal email.
If someone would take the time to make the summary of the review ...
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/SQL-Connectivity-Is-Boost-interested-in-CppDB-tp3086534p3224963.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.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