Re: [boost] Discussion policy draft

From: Ronald Garcia (rgarcia4_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-28 18:41:26

>>>>> "jk" == Jon Kalb <jonk_at_[hidden]> writes:

    >> I've written a draft of a Boost Discussion policy.
    >> 
    >> Comments?
    jk> Beman,

    jk> Your proposed policy is logical and lucid.
ditto.

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

Somewhat related to this discussion, perhaps it would make sense to
formally document a set of keywords used in subject headers.  That way
email filtering tools are more likely to work effectively. I think
that so far this has been pretty much the case, but it might be good
to make it official so that newcomers can immediately jump into the
practice.  But this raises the question, how many people on the list
use filtering to handle boost's volume?  Personally, I just throw all
of it in one folder and while reading I can create a virtual folder of
all messages with the same subject.  Is this functionality really
ubiquitous? 

ron