Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-14 13:45:45

On 14/03/2017 12:57, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> But pushing for
> accelerated growth is certainly not among the things I would promote.

I know what you're saying. But remember the "crushing under its own
weight" is an active choice of not reaching consensus on anything
different by the community. We, as a group, choose to be crushed. We
could choose different. We have the resources.

I try to keep asking: "what is best for the larger C++ ecosystem?"

* Is high quality peer review valuable? YES

* Is a staging ground before standardisation valuable? YES

So let's make Boost do those things as best we can. That means admitting
as many high quality C++ libraries as we can, and encouraging as many
people as possible to consider submitting their C++ library to Boost. I
am afraid that means growing as fast as we can.

> 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.

It's a valid point that I have significant sympathy with.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at