Re: [boost] Quality assurance (was Re: [tools][bcp] using boostinternally in other libraries)

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-28 10:35:58

As someone who has suffered from ISO 900x and the (threat of) FDA
inspections,
I think these are a very useful, and cheap, suggestions.

I think it will make is MUCH easier for regulated organisations to use
Boost,
especially as Boost exists only in cyberspace and is thus viewed with DEEP
suspicion.

You might also add a bullet point for support and regular corrections and
improvements,
on which we have a FAR better record than most commercial organisations.
You can't kick any butts or sue anyone, but you are actually more likely to
get effective help.

Paul

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  www.hetp.u-net.com

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Richard Jennings
| Sent: 28 September 2005 10:52
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Quality assurance (was Re: [tools][bcp] 
| using boostinternally in other libraries)
| 
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:58:51 +0100, Douglas Gregor 
| <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]>  
| wrote:
| 
| > 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
| of Boost.
| 
| 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".
| 
| Richard