From: Richard Jennings (richard.jennings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-28 04:51:52
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:58:51 +0100, Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]>
> Review manages are long-time, established members of the Boost
> community and are almost exclusively authors of existing Boost
> libraries. They are implicitly trusted by the Boost community to make
> sound decisions.
>> Ultimately it seems that the quality of Boost rests on the
>> experience of its
>> library authors and reviewers, so how does an observer assess that?
> Given that all library authors and reviewers are volunteers, I'm not
> sure how we can assess them as a group.
Thanks for the clarification on Review Managers.
Where I am coming from is that if you are following an ISO9001-style
quality system then you (I) need to assess off the shelf (OTS) software
before using it. This includes commercial, shrink-wrapped and open
source software. To do this you would assess the company/organisation
producing the software as well as the softare. In a commercial company
you might expect there to be training records that show that a person
is suitably trained and experienced to do their job (you can debate
whether training records actually show this or not).
I guess the ideal would be if the biographies of Boost People included
more about technical experience and contribution to Boost (given that
this is one of your criteria for being a Review Manager). I accept
that people may not want to provide this information.
How about a citations page that lists glowing references to Boost?
The Who's Using Boost page also backs up the wide use and acceptance
I hope it's clear that I'm _not_ questioning the quality of Boost. I
am just musing how I would prove to a Food and Drug Administration
Inspector that Boost is indeed "...one of the most highly regarded
and expertly designed C++ library projects in the world".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk