Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-02 09:01:40
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 12/29/2010 3:30 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:58:52 -0500,
>> Stewart, Robert wrote:
>> Yeah, but there's nothing encouraging it either. Â It would be cool to
>> have a system that made it more rewarding to write reviews of Boost
>> libraries, in such a way that reviews would continue after the review
>> period. Â Of course, that's mostly social engineering and someone would
>> have to figure out how to accomplish it :-)
>> Maybe if the reviews were more carefully archived and somehow viewable
>> separately from everything else, that'd be a first step. Â Just
>> thinking out loud, now.
> Well.. This is actually a solved social network problem. The obvious way to
> handle this is to post reviews to a web site in addition to the list
> organized by libraries, of course. The reviews would be available long-term
> and linked from the libraries listing (and the library itself). Making it so
> people can vote on reviews, and hence meta-vote on libraries, it might
> accomplish the social aspect. The immediate choice would be to structure it
> like stackoverflow. Hence people have some social competition impetus to do
> numerous quality reviews.
Interesting thought. I think there's something to this meta-voting thing.
A structure similar to Stack Overflow's would definitely put the game
mechanics into it to make it at least a little more rewarding.
-- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk