Boost logo

Boost :

From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-15 02:41:37

>> And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in
>> general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with
>> no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How
>> about potential review managers? ...

I think asking that review requests be made through the svn's ticket
system could work nicely. As far as your other ideas, that might be
changing things too much for now. We are all just staring to learn
SVN, so if you are interested, you could become our boost SVN
ticketing expert and lead the way. Contact me offline and we'll
discuss further. If we come up with something concrete, I'll propose
the changes to the moderators, who have the final say about any
changes to the review process.

My personal preference would be to not change anything for now. I
think the process works as well as can be expected. The "Silent
Rejection" issue is a non-issue. I cant think of a single case where
this has been a problem. The poster of a proposed library just has to
follow the rules established at Immediate response is not
always possible, but they may need to be persistant.

The "proposed" library author needs to generate some "buzz" to get the
extremely busy developers on the boost mailing list interested in
taking a look. Its not an easy process to be shur, but it has worked
well for most authors. The proposed library authors need to become
an active poster to the boost mailing list and create threads that are
of interest and related to his library. The libraries that have
"languashed" are relatively unknown. Those library author needs to
take responsiblity for generating some interest in their library.
Regularly posting to the boost mailing list usually does the trick.
Keep trying is all that I can say.

As far as recruiting qualified review managers, that has been and will
always be a problem.

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