Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 15:03:15
Daniel Walker wrote:
> I was just sitting here thinking that benevolent "dictator" is really
> not an apt term for what I'm talking about. I'm really talking about
> some sort of public servants who would represent the interests of the
> community of boosters. These benevolent representatives would perform
> the service of insuring the community's votes are adhered to from one
> release to the next by judiciously exercising the power of write
> permission for unit tests on svn. We could call them the "quality
> congress." ;) Or maybe committee is a better word. Or maybe we could
> just make this a function of the release manager, if he isn't already
> overburdened. Anyway, I guess you all get the idea.
LOL - getting into political philosophy here.
This is totally the wrong approach and would consume enormous
resources and stymy any attempt to actually get anything done -
pretty much like the "real congress".
The right model is that the author makes his library which reflects
his own choices and values. The review process guarentees
that it meets some consensus about minimun acceptable levels
of utility, quality, etc. The it is unleashed upon the world
as part of the "boost release". At this point, users review
it in light of thier current needs. They might use it, they might
complain about, they might do any number of things. One
of the things they do is report on one of the lists. And
this guides other users as to whether or not they expect
to use it.
We can see this process playing as we speak regarding
boost range. Looks like its working pretty well to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk