Re: [boost] [Dataflow] [Review] Dataflow review has ended

Subject: Re: [boost] [Dataflow] [Review] Dataflow review has ended
From: Paul Baxter (pauljbaxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 17:11:02

>> Jaakko Järvi <jarvi <at> cs.tamu.edu> writes:
>>> The number of reviews for the dataflow library was very low (one, 
>>> positive).
>>
>> This seems to be general theme nowdays. Maybe we can have some kind of
>> pre-registration for people planing to submit the review and reschedule 
>> it if
>> this number is less than some threshold (5?)
>
> This seems like a good idea.  There is supposed to be a "gauge interest"
> phase to the submission process.  Is that failing to work, or are we
> ignoring its results, or are people claiming interest and then not
> submitting reviews?

In general terms, given the limited resources of the volunteers for reviews, 
I agree that more thought could be given to the gauging of interest phase.

Perhaps prior to review, an online 'vote' could be hosted on the web site to 
gauge general interest (new votes every release cycle to stop it becoming 
stale)?

I do think boost could also offer a distinct means to support 'developing 
libraries' which perhaps allow developers a mouthpiece to announce and 
obtain feedback for ongoing library development either as a preliminary 
stage to a boost review or as an adjunct service building on the interest 
and availability of boost's membership.

The sandbox and developer lists offer this to some extent in an ad-hoc 
manner but perhaps an explicit sandbox 'mini-review' checklist and early 
adopter's comments managed by the author as supporting evidence as part of a 
review request? (e.g. five positive early adopter mini reviews, plus popular 
vote)

My perception is that currently a few motivated individuals are sufficient 
to get a submission in the queue and with a review slot. This may not 
necessarily serve the best interests of boost and the wider C++ community.

I'd also be interested to understand whether boost is now rejecting more 
libraries after review and what the reasons have been for doing so. Is there 
a pattern?

Perhaps potential libraries should have a tougher job making it into the 
review queue with regard to clear statements of purpose, wide interest, 
pre-existing maturity of design and ideally some maturity of implementation 
demonstrated at least in part by those mini-review checklist criteria.