Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-14 12:57:06
On 14.03.2017 08:01, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> Dear Boost,
> I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have
> exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed
> libraries awaiting a review.
> As the ongoing strength and vitality of Boost is inextricably linked to
> new growth,
Is it really ?
I maintain what I have been saying for many years: Boost (as an
organization) is crushing under its own weight. There are many other
things I would consider being important for its vitality (such as
changing its mode of organization - such as into an umbrella
organization of relatively autonomous projects). But pushing for
accelerated growth is certainly not among the things I would promote.
> I think that waiting around for years for someone to
> volunteer to manage a review is not healthy.
I always thought that the "self-organized" nature of Boost processes
(including the review process) is a means to select the "generally
useful" submissions from the "esoteric corner case" ones. In other
words: if a library submitter can't gather enough interest in the wider
community to find reviewers and a review manager, it implies the
submitted project is finally not a good candidate for addition.
*That* is part of the strength of Boost (and of Open Source projects in
general, for that matter): It really represents the community's needs,
rather than what any particular party pushes through.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk