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
I think these are a very useful, and cheap, suggestions.
I think it will make is MUCH easier for regulated organisations to use
especially as Boost exists only in cyberspace and is thus viewed with DEEP
You might also add a bullet point for support and regular corrections and
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 A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204
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
| > 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".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk