Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-15 04:15:13
On 3/14/17 4:00 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> On 14.03.2017 17:53, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>> "Only those who have managed a boost review can expect their library
>> submissions to be to be reviewed."
> The qualifications needed to write a boost-grade library and the
> qualifications needed to manage a review aren't the same. I don't think
> it's sensible to couple the two tasks in the suggested way.
If the qualifications aren't exactly the same they are pretty similar in
> What if the criteria for acceptance (into Boost) would be changed such
> that an active user and developer community was a prerequisite, as a way
> to predict the project's livelihood ? Again, this would work best if the
> library would be much more autonomous, so there was much less
> integration work required to bring a library on board. Boost wouldn't
> subsequently have to care for maintenance of the library. If a given
> library would be unmaintained for an extended period of time, it would
> simply be removed from Boost.
> No single person (or group of persons) would have to be responsible for
> certain tasks involving all of Boost (including but not limited to:
> building, testing, releasing), making the overall (umbrella)
> organization much simpler to manage and contribute to.
This has a lot of common with my vision for the boost library incubator.
It would create and opportunity for the library to create a following.
It would permit reviews to be gathered in advance of the review. so
that the role of the review would be more routine.
To my disappointment it hasn't been successful in this regard. That is
my motivation for promoting this idea.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk