Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 07:57:55

Dave Gomboc <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> ] I suggest that such a requirement be added to the formal
> ] review process, with a specific (low, ie, 3) number of
> ] "formal seconds" required for a formal review request in
> ] order for it to reach the schedule. It should be explicitly
> ] noted that "seconding" a review request does not imply a vote
> ] to accept, nor a commitment on the part of the person
> ] seconding to participate in the review.
> I also like the idea, but with a twist: it should be explicitly
> noted that seconding a review request _does_ imply a commitment to
> review the library should a review be scheduled for it.

It's a good idea, but I have to ask: is this a bicycle shed
discussion? Does tweaking the seconding process really solve any of
Thomas' problems?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at