Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation

Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-04 12:32:47

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
Behalf Of
> Stewart, Robert
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:39 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or
unreleased boost
> documentation
> 
> > Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > > We need to have a way of saying that this is "Hoping to be proposed for
review for Boost".
> Really?

Really!
 
> > > An important part of the review process, IMO, is getting a
> > > user base - this is where the bugs get flushed out, and the
> > > unpopular design decisions flagged up.  To leave it all to
> > > a final review is far too late

> Having a special logo for this state doesn't help that process along, does it?

Yes IMO.

> My suggestion was to use the "powered by" logo as a placeholder in such cases.

> Does that detract from a work in progress?

Yes - I think this muddies the waters.

IMO "Powered by" should only be for those (Google, Microsoft, Nokia...) using
Boost for their *finished end products*, not for libraries for submission to
Boost.  It's a 'thank you Boost' message - like the web listing of
products/companies that acknowledge that they are using Boost.

(Aside - I can't conceive of a new Boost library that doesn't use Boost, so
there is no need to acknowledge it?)

> > > This is why I long argued for a formal "Not accepted, Under
> > > development and worth giving a try but don't count on it too much yet"
status.
 
> I think that is well handled by having a page on the Boost web site with a
list of just such
> projects, provided those with write access are willing to take on that chore.

Agreed the wiki site is helpful - but marking the docs with a specific logo is
also helpful in a different way.
The main thing I think we are all trying to avoid is not-reviewed docs with the
Boost logo, implying that they are reviewed and released.  
 
> > > A different logo (Developing for Boost? Candidate for
> > > Boost? Development for Boost?  Prototype for Boost? RFC for
> > > Boost?  ) would provide this.  Perhaps we still haven't got
> > > the right words yet?
> 
> I can understand that a library developer would like to gain notoriety by
association with
> Boost while developing a library for possible inclusion in Boost, but does a
logo for that
> spur the author to do anything s/he wouldn't have done already?

I think it does.

>  Does such a logo inform those examining such a library about something not
already known?

Yes - it says this is getting to a usable state, and perhaps nearing proposal
for review.
> 
> > I really like Candidate for Boost or maybe Submission Candidate for Boost
> 
> One isn't a candidate for anything until one announces one's candidacy.  In
this case, the
> announcement of candidacy is a formal review request.  If there's to be a logo
for libraries
> under development but not submitted for review, "developing for" works well.

"Developing for Boost" works fine for me too, but "Under construction for" works
too.

The main thing I think we are all trying to avoid is not-reviewed docs with the
Boost logo, implying that they are reviewed and released.  

Paul