Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 21:53:49
On 3/16/17 11:24, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 10:49 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost wrote:
<snip other stuff>
>> * Not having a review manager might be an indicator of not enough
>> interest in a library. It is the job of the author to ensure there
>> is enough interest by the community. Perhaps the author hasn't done
>> enough promotion. Maybe more solicitation on the ML is required or
>> perhaps people just don't find the solution interesting. One person
>> saying, "that sounds like a neat library!" shouldn't constitute
> I dislike the idea that if someone creates a worthy library as a
> possible addition to Boost, and gets enough initial discussion so that
> an addition to Boost's review queue of that library is made, that person
> must continually promote that library so that there is enough interest
> in Boost so that someone, anyone, is willing to be the review manager
> for that library. Why should this always be necessary in the face of the
> fact that very few of the people who contribute to Boost, via
> discussions on this mailing list and work on various libraries or work
> on other areas of the Boost infrastructure, are willing to be review
> managers ? Certainly this situation is not the library submitter's
> fault. BTW this situation, vis a vis being a review manager, is not in
> any way a criticism of all those people who contribute to Boost and
> neither have the time or inclination or interest to server as a review
> manager for a library in the review queue.
It is up to the library submitter to garner interest in their library.
Do you think that all of the libraries in the queue have shown that
there is ample community interest?
-- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk