Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-06 14:28:33
Gordon Woodhull wrote
> I don't think Robert ever intended the Incubator to replace the formal
> review or the role of the Wizards.
> Instead, IMO it is better thought of as a replacement for the unscheduled
> part of the review schedule (aka the Queue), and a better way to verify
> the basic requirements for submitting a library. And reviews can be
> submitted and responded to before the formal review, without getting
> buried in the mailing list.
Basically correct. I think the boost review process has been the single
most important innovation that boost has made. I believe that without this
idea - boost (and C++) would not be where they are today. The fact that it
is NOT a voting process but places the final decision in the hands of one
publicly named person makes it entirely different than other attempts at
evaluating software. Software quality is not determined by consensus but
rather by people making decisions they must take responsibility for.
My intention is to preserve all of the above - just make it easier to use.
One aspect - the 1-2 week period is a good idea - but couples reviews to a
narrow window. The main idea of the incubator is to permit reviews to be
made when a reviewer is ready to do it - and save them for later. Again- I
don't think the review process itself needs any change - we just need more
reviews and that's what I'm trying to accomplish.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Incubator-Status-Report-tp4668747p4668776.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk