From: Robert Zeh (razeh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-25 08:12:28
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> ...but I don't see how this will help. Quite the opposite in fact.
> It seems as though we'll be likely to "accept in principle" a library
> that needs a redesign, and that will set up the expectation that the
> as-yet-unknown library design should be accepted with little scrutiny.
> I don't think I want to have any kind of even semi-official stamp of
> approval on a library that we shouldn't actually accept.
> The preliminary review process, if people actually go through it, is
> self-selecting for formal reviews. If only a very small group is
> interested in the design, it is likely not to be pursued further. If
> many are interested but the design is controversial, it's likely to
> be redesigned. It's my sense that too many people are reaching for
> the "glory" (such as it is) of an accepted library without going
> through the earlier stages.
Perhaps part of the answer is to give the reviewers more glory.
One way to give the reviewers more glory is to create a "Boost Reviewers"
page similar to the "Boost people" page. Another is to add the list
of reviewers to the documentation for each library after it is
accepted (some documentation does this, but some does not).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk