Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 16:17:41
Chad Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:19:40 -0800
> "Simonson, Lucanus J" <lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> KTC wrote:
>>> Take an example of Xint. [...]
>> I have participated in many arbitrary precision integer library
>> discussions on this list and am using gmp with my own library. Why
>> have I never gotten an email asking me to be the review manager for
>> Xint? [...]
> Because I didn't know to ask, and didn't know who or even how until a
> couple months ago. But if you're interested, I'm asking now. :-)
I think Vlad just volunteered, so consider me a backup. I will at the very least participate in the review.
So, it is important for everyone to understand what the review process is for. It isn't just to decide if the code belongs in boost. It is also to decide whether the author is willing and able to maintain the library and contribute to the community over the long term. If you need help with a technical problem with your library you could ask the list, but you could also ask individuals (other boost authors) that you know have expertise in the area for advice or even direct help with you problem. If I know Steven Watanabe might be able to help me I post to the list and put his name in the post suggesting he might know the answer to some question. I know he reads the list and nothing gets a person's attention like seeing their own name. For other members of the boost community that I know don't follow the list closely (most don't, I don't) I email them directly so that I can be sure they see the email. No one comes to boost knowing the habits and background of various boost library authors, it takes time participating in the community to build relationships that you can draw on to be effective and it also takes time to build the experience working with the community to know how to draw on those relationships. There is no change, no fix to the review process, that we can make that will be a substitute for that time.
Personally I think building relationships with our peers is more important and of more benefit to boost library authors than having a library that goes into the boost release. After my library was accepted and after it was released there was no big change. I wasn't different, boost wasn't different. What was a valuable result of it was what I learned along the way and the network of friends and colleagues I developed. My advice is to not be impatient and learn to value what is really important in all of this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk