Subject: Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval
From: Ronald Garcia (rxg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 00:01:21
Iâve been following the conversation on the Review Schedule, and it seems to be converging on a nice solution.
I had been thinking that it would be a good idea to purge the schedule and start anew. Note that there are some libraries
have listed managers but have not been scheduled for review long after a manager volunteered, so itâs worth
also double-checking libraries that have managers (minus those where a manager has volunteered this calendar year).
I am not fond of listing Reddit in the same class of âdetermine interestâ as boost-dev and the incubator. That may be a useful
place to get feedback, but is outside the boost community, and there are likely other venues to consider aside from reddit if weâre going to
cast a wider net.
The text on the current page candidate is stricter in tone than
the original wording in the suggestion to the steering committee:
"So before investing hundreds of hours of your time, use the Boost developers mailing list <https://boost-website.nedprod.com/community/groups.html>, the Boost Library Incubator <http://blincubator.com/> and Reddit/r/cpp <https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/> as forums to gauge â¦â
"To find someone to endorse a new library for review, the library
author ought to ideally canvas for a library's motivation before they
ever begin writing or designing it, but failing that they need to
approach boost-dev and publicise their library seeking people to
publicly endorse it for review. Other forums work too e.g. reddit/r/cpp,
the Incubator or anywhere else.â
I like the general tone of the latter better. It should also be made clear that a library should be ready for review when it goes on the schedule, even if more updates are planned. If a library needs a couple of more months to be ready for review than it should not go on the schedule for a couple of more months.
It is hard for me to compare the proposed page update to the current without seeing a diff, so I will look forward to seeing the pull request.
All-in-all these are good ideas. Resetting the schedule is a good one-time thing to do, and requiring an endorsement before being added to the review schedule is consistent with Boost practices.
> On Mar 19, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 19/03/2017 18:04, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>> The proposed reformed policy page for submitting a library for review to
>>> Boost can be found at
>> Why would the Boost review process page mandate "Reddit/r/cpp" as one
>> of the places to solicit feedback about the new library submission?
> It only refers to the "Determine Interest" section.
> I've found Reddit very, very useful in helping refine the popularity of
> a new library before I begin. pcpp for example took in a lot of feedback
> from there before I began.
> I also have them amazing in knocking documentation into new orbits of
> usefulness. The Outcome tutorial is mostly thanks to Reddit.
> Note Reddit is only suitable for those two steps alone. The reset of the
> submission process is boost-dev and Incubator only. I've tried to
> clarify the wording, try
> https://boost-website.nedprod.com/development/submissions.html again.
> And Peter, note the seconders needed is one person now.
> ned Productions Limited Consulting
> http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk