Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-13 12:45:13

Hello more,

Wednesday, June 13, 2007, 8:04:22 PM, you wrote:

> I would like to give my testimonial on this point...


> I think that you should setup a review process similar to scientific
> journal submissions. This mean:

> step 1: submit your proposal of new library to the Chief Editor (Tom or
> Ronald)
> step 2: the Chief Editor quickly look if the contribution worth a review and
> immediately feedback to the submitter
> step 3: If accepted for review, the Chief Editor delegate to an Associate
> Editor the managing of reviews
> step 4: The Associate Editor know trusted reviewers and personally ask if
> they want to review
> step 5: Each reviewers gives back their comments
> step 6: Based on the comments of the reviewers, the AE decide to accept,
> reject or ask modifications and feedback the submitter immediately


I have to say I disagree with you at the point where "trusted
reviewers" appear. This means that the majority of potential users of
the proposed library are not allowed to express their opinions,
requests and questions about it. I think it's not the right way to
develop libraries that are needed by _people_, not only by the
_author_ and a group of trusted reviewers.

As for the rest, I think it pretty much reflects the current order of
library submission.

Best regards,
 Andrey                            mailto:andysem_at_[hidden]

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at