Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-04 13:37:56
Stewart, Robert wrote:
> 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.
I've mentioned before that I think "developing for" is unclear, but I
haven't really said what bothers me about it. The sense you mean, I
think, is "I'm developing this software for possible future inclusion in
boost". The one that I worry about is, "I'm acting as some sort of
(quasi-)official representative of boost, and I'm developing this for
them". It's as if I was a contractor or some super duper special boost
guy, and I was "developing for" boost under contract. After all, if I
sent you an email saying that I was working on a library that I was
"developing for" Apple, it's what you would assume. Now I know that it
doesn't happen like that with boost, but most people in the software
community don't read this list, don't know anything about how boost
works, and could just as easily come to that conclusion as the other.
It could easily be misconstrued because it doesn't clearly say, "I'm
developing this with the thought that I might submit it to boost and see
how it goes."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk