Re: [boost] Discussion policy draft

From: Jon Kalb (jonk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-28 17:38:48

>I've written a draft of a Boost Discussion policy.
>
>See
>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/boost/more/discussion_policy.htm?rev=1.1&cvsroot=boost
>
>Comments?
>
>--Beman

Beman,

Your proposed policy is logical and lucid. My comment is about 
discussion policy, but in a different vein.

I have seen requests made to divide the discussion list up by 
library. The response has been that the "cross-pollination" effect of 
engineers participating in discussions about libraries that are not 
their primary interest is valuable. I suspect that this is true. But 
I recognize that this list is an extremely high-volume list and this 
is off-putting to many (or most) engineers.

I propose that rather than divide the list by library, that the list 
be divided into a list for library developers and a list for (Boost) 
library users. The advantage that I see is that a significant number 
of engineers might be inclined to try out one or more Boost libraries 
if the discussion list were less intimidating (in both volume and 
technical detail).

The obvious disadvantage that I see is that some engineers that would 
otherwise join and contribute to the "developer" list might only 
subscribe to the "user" list. This disadvantage must be weighed 
against the possibility of increased users for Boost libraries. Over 
time, subscribers to the user list may migrate to the developer list 
after developing a greater understanding of Boost and its purpose.

I'm not really certain what the mission of Boost is. If the mission 
is just to have a place to develop quality libraries then expanding 
the user base isn't really important. On the other hand if, 
propagating the libraries is part of the mission, then I think some 
thought should be given to the needs of engineers that might be 
interested in using one or more Boost libraries, but only if a low 
volume list is available (to help get started).

-- 
jonk