Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*
From: M.A. van den Berg (thijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 16:20:53

> On 21 May 2016, at 22:01, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> M.A. van den Berg wrote:
>> Personally I think allowing boost branded libraries (approved by boost, conforms to boost guidelines.. something like that) that are separately downloadable -just like any lib on Github really- can have many benefits: It allows for growth in the number of libraries, it decouples releases, abandoned libraries won’t hurt the quality of a release because there is no longer a monolithic releases.
>> 
>> Boost is a brand with a reputation, it imposes requirement on libraries that help build that reputation. A monolithic release is not an essential aspect for that.
> 
> That's the underlying assumption of those who press for change. What if it's wrong?
> 
> Boost releases are the signature product of Boost. What if the value of the Boost brand is substantially contained in Boost releasing quality code as a single unit that can be adopted wholesale in a single step?
> 
> What if turning Boost into a committee that merely rubber-stamps libraries would destroy the value of the Boost brand?
> 
> Incidentally, the growth in number of libraries is currently impeded not by the monolithic release, but by the review process. That is, it's the rubber stamping part that's the problem, not hypothetical entrenched evil groups of old people who hypothetically delete people's CMakeLists.txt files under the cover of the night. 

Good points.

How can we speed of the review process, make it more efficient? To take an extreme: Apple reviews millions of apps, the reject very quickly and have a likely a semi-automated and rational checklist that developers can self asses their submissions against. 

Boost submissions are much more technical so you can’t really apply such a binary checklist (even though reviews already have structure). Perhaps it’s an idea to invite (new) people to participate in the review process? Or is the level of required seniority too hard to find?