Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 08:56:35
2009/11/16 Jose <jmalv04_at_[hidden]>:
> I realize that there is no mention to the word "vote" in the review
> policy, just "review comments". See message below for rationale on why
> these may be good changes.
I strongly dislike the idea of "voting" and a correspondingly purely
objective acceptance criterion, since then you have to define whether
someone is permitted to vote, which is necessarily exclusive.
I'd be far more interested in a 2-stage process where there's a
limited review for whether something is usable, at which point is gets
into the official distribution, but under a "proposed" subdirectory.
These might not be the optimal implementations or interfaces, nor
would they need to be at all orthogonal. A later review like the
current would then decide whether it's the correct form for the
functionality, at which point it would be promoted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk