Subject: Re: [boost] [Dataflow] [Review] Dataflow review has ended
From: Paul Baxter (pauljbaxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 17:11:02
>> Jaakko JÃ¤rvi <jarvi <at> cs.tamu.edu> writes:
>>> The number of reviews for the dataflow library was very low (one,
>> 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
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
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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk