Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-02 08:51:38
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Patrick Horgan <phorgan1_at_[hidden]>:
> > My 3 cents. If they have been rejected, but are still
> > working to improve
> > the proposal, then they are still proposed for. If they
> > have abandoned the
> > effort, either by abandoning the software completely, or by
> > deciding to
> > continue without the software outside of any association
> > with boost, then
> > they don't need a special icon for that state. They might
> > be using boost,
> > but are not in any other way associated with boost.
> Why are you assuming that failing in a formal review implies
> abandoning association to boost. This can be an understandable
> reaction if grand and unrealistic expectations were held that
> did not meet reality.
If the library was rejected, and the author chooses not to try again, that library has no association with Boost other than that its author is/was a Booster. If the library is further developed outside Boost, in the spirit of Boost, but without seeking acceptance into Boost, then nothing can be known of its state, particularly relative to Boost, except that it wasn't accepted by Boost. It may be great, it might even be accepted today were the author to retry, or it might be horrible. Therefore, it mustn't bear a Boost logo except, perhaps, the "powered by Boost" logo to avoid the suggestion that Boost approves of the library.
> Other people may experience they learned a lot and have
> another try in a different library project.
What the author learns from Boost and the review process isn't relevant to putting a Boost logo on the rejected library.
> My idea to introduce a state "boost compliant" could be an
> of the simple truth, that the library, in the process to be
> prepared for formal
> review gained quality and implements all the conventions and
> that are necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) for a
> boost library to be accepted.
If the library was rejected, it was good enough for a review manager and the review wizards to put it up for review. That means something, there's no doubt. Since the library was rejected, and without locating and reading the review results, nothing is known about the quality of the library. Applying any Boost logo besides "powered by" or similar implies more than is known. (I'm speaking in generalities. Of course someone could review a specific library, consider the review results, etc., and determine whether that library good enough to grant permission to use some variant Boost logo. In the general case, however, no such determination can be made merely based upon a library's having been rejected.)
Putting a "Boost compliant" logo on a library lends the Boost name to that library and gives tacit approval of that library. Since the library was rejected, that hardly seems wise.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk