Subject: Re: [boost] C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: BjÃ¸rn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-29 23:15:38
On Saturday 30 January 2010 01:57:05 am Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Would it be possible for some one to craft a logo which has the word
> > "Proposed" plastered over the normal boost logo. This would better
> > communicate the true intention. That this a library which is intended to
> > become part of boost, but which hasn't been officially accepted yet.
> I'd love to get my hands on something like that.
I think boost should have guideline for this in documentation templates and
guidelines and probably in the wiki. A standard set of logo designs used at
various stages in a proposal life-cycle may be good, I made some proposal
designs and uploaded to the vault as logo/boost_logo_alternatives.zip
I played a little with various font sizes, so they vary a bit so you can see
the difference. A different color may also be used to highlight the message.
Guidelines like this make sense:
Any library or system using boost may use the "powered by" or "using"
Any library being developed with the intention to propose for boost inclusion
may use the "under construction for" variant.
Any library in the review queue may use the "proposed for" variant.
Accepted libraries may use the "accepted for" variant.
Released libraries shall use the standard boos logo.
New work on rejected submissions should use the "rejected proposal" variant if
there are no plans for re-submission but source is left in the boost
New work on a rejected library for planned re-submission should use the "under
construction for" variant.
New work on a rejected library in different for planned re-submission should
use the "under construction for".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk