Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-14 17:31:47
> None of these points involve the need to increase the amount of accepted
> libraries at any cost. As others have pointed out, Boost's livelihood does
> not directly depend on the number of accepted libraries but just on their
> quality. Adding money to the mix favors adding libraries at all cost,
> non-withstanding their quality or real-world-need, emphasizing the
> commercial aspect.
As you usual, you deliberately misquote or cherry pick quote people and
then make a big song and dance about your reinterpretation of what they
said. It's tiring and irritating.
I never said payment for adding new libraries. I did say payment for new
library REVIEWS and especially the **ADMIN** of reviewing them.
Rejection of a submitted library is just fine. Letting submitted
libraries stew for up to SEVEN years before getting reviewed is
UNACCEPTABLE if Boost is to remain even remotely relevant.
I now snip the usual Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt you like to sow Hartmut
whenever actual REAL CHANGE is proposed or discussed, leaving us with
this which had some value:
> This would also raise a lot of questions I wouldn't even know how to start
> answering. Like:
> - What's next? Letting library authors pay for their library being reviewed?
> After all THEY are the most interested parties in adding their work to
What has that to do with anything being proposed? Nothing.
> - Or perhaps accepting 'donations' from companies earmarked for paying a
> review manager, further skewing the review process?
What has that to do with anything being proposed? Nothing. Totally
> - Will every review manager receive the money? Regardless of the quality of
> how the review is managed? What would be the criteria for a review manager
> doing a good enough job to receive the payment? Who decides on this? How
> many reviews would be a single person be allowed to perform?
These are good questions. Plenty of possibilities. None are showstoppers
to the idea, not even remotely.
> - Would previous review managers receive an equally generous payment for the
> libraries reviewed in the past? If yes - why, if no - why not?
Another good question, and again not insolvable in either direction. Not
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk