From: Leland Brown (lelandbrown_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 18:00:22
> Here is how I think that a review procedure could be improved:
> 1) It should be devided into at least five votes:
> A. Is the concept ok? Do we want SUCH a library in boost?
> B. Is the presented library a good starting point, or do
> we think we should start from scratch?
> C. Is the presented API of the library on the right track?
> D. Is the internal implementation on the right track?
> E. Is the documentation good enough for a boost library?
I like this - these are fairly orthogonal issues (except perhaps B, which C and
D also address). They may deserve separate evaluations in a review, to make it
more clear what should be done with the library from here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk